onething

>...Scalia famously pushed originalism, but even he essentially writes out slavery, Native American disenfranchisement, and the chattel status of women in the 18th century, and other originalists are even less consistent.

I am no legal scholar by any means, but wasn't Scalia's argument that if the people don't like the social contract (i.e. the constitution), the people should change it via amendments vs having judges change it? I think he would say he did not "essentially writes out slavery..." but rather the 13th, the 19th amendments etc. wrote those out of the constitution.

Their service to institutions might have been good at one point, but their service to consumers was horrendous. I bought a PC from them at around their height and about 1 month later the hard disk died. It took a few customer service calls (each requiring a wait of 45 minutes to an hour to talk to someone) before they agreed the hard disk was bad. They send out an empty hard disk and I had to take the time to re-install all the software from a huge number of floppies. I also had to take time to package up the old drive, go to UPS and pay the postage to ship the broken drive back to them. (I remember they preemptively billed my credit card for the hard disk and later credited me. I guess they assumed their customers were scum bags like themselves.) I realized that when taking my time into account, I would have been much better off just paying for the hard drive myself and ignoring the warranty. Companies like they deservedly belong in the ash heap of history.

>...libertarians believe there should be no regulation about what data companies can collect and how they process it.

Such an overly broad statement is wrong. The libertarian position is more nuanced than that with people (at least in their minds) generally trying to balance privacy without hurting innovation. See for example

https://www.libertarianism.org/building-tomorrow/protecting-...

>...There is a difference between mass surveillance and law enforcement.

There is a difference between Facebook collecting data about its users and Homeland Security/FBI/NSA/etc etc collecting data about citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

The original context here was

>...But if it gets deployed against George Floyd protestors... Ehhh... nbd)

Mass surveillance by the government is a big deal to libertarians and always has been.

I am surprised anyone would think this.

This article sums it up pretty well:

>...In 1971, the fledgling Libertarian Party (L.P.) called for "the repeal of all 'crimes without victims' now incorporated in federal and state laws," such as the prohibitions on drug use that have driven so much of the escalation in aggressive police tactics. The same platform declared itself opposed to "so-called 'no-knock laws'" of the sort that got Breonna Taylor killed by cops this year when they crashed through her door at night, unannounced, looking for illegal drugs.

>..."We support full restitution for all loss suffered by persons arrested, indicted, tried, imprisoned, or otherwise injured in the course of criminal proceedings against them which do not result in their conviction," the L.P. proposed in 1976. "Law enforcement agencies should be liable for this restitution unless malfeasance of the officials involved is proven, in which case they should be personally liable."

https://reason.com/2020/06/08/where-are-libertarians-on-poli...

This search can give you a list of hundreds of articles on police abuse:

https://reason.com/search/police%20abuse/?sort=newest&utm_me...

It isn't that simple.

>...Seven of the top 10 most profitable hospitals in the United States are nonprofit facilities that each netted more than $150 million from caring for patients in 2013,

>...The study’s main purpose was to determine the characteristics of the nation’s most profitable hospitals. They found that facilities that were part of a system were more profitable because they were able to dominate their local market, which gives them greater clout in negotiating higher prices from private insurers. It also means consumers end up paying more if their health-care provider is out of network, Anderson said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/0...

Also:

>...Nonprofit hospitals have higher profit margins than most for-profit hospitals after accounting for their tax obligations.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2017/04/25/the-fairy-tale-...

>...(eg. the idea that long wait times would occur, when wait times for USA and wait times for other first world countries with socialized medicine isn't very differe

Do you have a citation for that?

>...The idea that socialized medicine would cause less medicine research and advancements, when increasingly medicine advancements are coming from countries with socialized medicine-

Can you expand on that? What medical advancements are increasingly coming from countries with socialized medicine? The usual argument is simply that since the US doesn't have the price controls on drugs, that companies make a good deal of their profits from the US market.

I wouldn't expect competition among insurance companies to lower prices by very much. Insurance companies are already constrained by law as to how much profit they can make and there is only so much overhead you can remove.

In terms of competition, the real problem is the artificially low numbers of health care workers and facilities. The Drs are limited by the low number of medical schools, etc and the number of facilities are limited by requiring Certificates of Need, etc.

First remove these barriers to entry and require transparent pricing. Then... maybe competition would result in lower prices.

Your article says that using iCloud for storage is optional and all users were warned of this change and had to agree to new service terms. Why wouldn't anyone worried about their data, simply do backups on a computer?

There seems to be a difference in scale here. According to the Washington Post, Amazon is getting 2.4 _billion_ in subsidies from Virginia, New York and Tennessee:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-news/amazon-hq...

That is substantially different than a property tax abatement.

Were there protests at Obama's residence, like Bush had when president?

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/politics/mother-takes-pro...

According to wikipedia, there were a couple of anti-war protests after Obama took office, but nothing compared to when Bush was president:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

>...I don't recall any saying that it should continue and using going to war as a tool for pseudo-patriotic posturing.

It isn't hard to see that opposition to the war dwindled drastically after the president had a D after their name in 2009. Why was that? We only left Iraq at the time proposed by Bush (and even then Obama tried to extend it but couldn't get agreement from the Ira government)

>...Democrats don't reject that it is scientifically possible to genetically modify food, or even that any assertion that is is totally safe is false. Rather, there are three main arguments against GMO: 1. The risk posed to humans is still uncertain and poses an outsized risk, 2. Allowing a company to patent food, along with monopoly rights, is a dangerous social policy, especially when farmers are being sued out of business by GMO crop contamination (even when they take great pains not to use GMO seed), 3. Consumers should at least be notified about the presence of GMO in food so they can make an informed choice.

Right - and the above is a rejection of the scientific consensus.

>...Democrats are not saying nuclear fission is fake, but the severity of an accident makes even a very low risk of an accident a very asymmetric harm that should be weighed carefully.

Even including Chernobyl (which was an unsafe design that would have been illegal to built anywhere other than the Soviet Union), the scientific consensus is that nuclear power has been the safest form of power generation.

The positions of the conservatives on global warming is disgusting, but the refusal to accept the science on things like the above is also bad.

>...Further, we don't have a legitimate storage facility for nuclear waste.

It was a democrat who stopped that. Though next generation reactors will be able to use nuclear waste as fuel, so keeping the spent fuel around above ground might turn out to be the best approach. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

Unfortunately it was a democrat who stopped work on that design.

>...President Bush gave a speech describing his supply side policies as trickle down...

Let me guess, this was at a charity event or the white house corresponds dinner where you are expected to make fun of yourself.

>...that is not me being pejorative, that is, and has been, the common descriptive phrase first suggested by a republican president.

No. The first use of this was by William Jennings Bryan at the 1896 democratic national convention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

>All of these are republican policies,

Well let's see... It was libertarians like Milton Friedman who helped end the draft after the Viet Nam war. The registration for the draft was put back into place by Carter who was a democrat. Influential democrats like Charles Rangel have argued for actually implementing the draft:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/this-democratic-congressm...

A republican tried to insert language to end the registration but failed as democrats pushed to add women to the registration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06...

Same goes for the rest - as I said in my original message, conservatives support many if not all of the programs I've listed. If you want to argue that democrats don't support "zombie" programs that don't work and waste money, then either show democrats have ended these programs or that these programs are not "zombie" programs.

You will notice at the bottom of my posting, I had written:

>Conservatives also support many/all(?) programs, but that just means both sides are wrong.

The fact that conservatives support many or all of these programs doesn't make them good.

The OP had asked to name a democrat zombie policy ... that keeps being proven wrong and yet they insist will work... I don't think it is difficult to do that.

>...When Obama took office, the new POTUS' policies aligned to a significant degree with the anti-war protestors.

What actually changed? We left Iraq at the timetable Bush proposed and I think Obama wanted to extend it past that but couldn't come to terms with the Iraq government. There was a troop surge in Afghanistan - the thing that was criticized when Bush did it. People have a right to their opinion and the right to protest, but it does appear the anti-war democrats weren't quite as active once the POTUS had a D by the name.

I don't have space to go over the foreign military adventures done by Obama, here is an overview:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/ob...

>...This is true "political correctness"

Not really. The OP asked for politics that didn't work and got consistent support. I listed a few ones that came to mind. I also think these bad polices are also endorsed by conservatives. Rather than attack the idea that people could ever be wrong, why don't you address the policies I brought up and explain why either they are great polices or that democrats don't support them.

I don't know if it is helpful to jump into political discussions, but I'll give it a try...

>...- Name a 10 year war democrats have championed...

I think the OP might have been referring to the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS? We ended up leaving Iraq at the same timetable that Bush had proposed.

>... Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided...

Well the unemployment numbers don't include the long term unemployed who would still like a job, etc so I would assume everyone should look beyond the simple number reported in the press.

>... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming

GMOs? Nuclear power?

>...- Name a democrat zombie policy like "trickle down economics" that keeps being proven wrong and yet they insist will work...

No economist has ever proposed a policy called "trickle down economics". The pejorative is simply used by people to attack someone else's economic polices. Using a perjorative is simply an attempt to poison the well and prevent discussion. In terms of policies that don't work. but still get support... A couple that come to mind:

- wasting money to require registration for the draft

- war on drugs

- DARE program

- three strikes (voted in CA, a heavy democratic state)

Conservatives also support many/all(?) programs, but that just means both sides are wrong.