I don't think he feels that way; he is arguing that these problems highlight major problems for capitalism, but that some conservatives refuse to try to confront them because they fear that government intervention into the economy in this form is communism.
as I mentioned above there are plenty of people that take the "group inferiority" route but caveat it as the fact these people are basically being lead to bad choices by policies of political parties that apparently encourage laziness and popping out babies blah blah. Many favor this as it also allows them to point to the successful individuals that do come out of hard places to grow up (BEN CARSON) as evidence of how the problem isn't racist/bias power structures but personal choice and the government's systems trying to help that actually do harm.
I think you misunderstand his post. He is presenting the three "types" of reasons people usually cite for the vastly different outcomes among different groups of people. Your first paragraph is covered entirely by his item in #3, while your second paragraph is covered in his #2... basically an argument a lot of subtle racists make that black culture somehow favors welfare babies and broken homes. This is often blamed on "the system", actually, and ofc dem policies.
I suppose it depends how you define prosper. What items are you willing to cut? We might very well be able to if we simply dissolved the department of defense and all our armed forces but uh... that seems like a bad idea. :p
So I have this new theory that trump's campaign is actually a reality TV show that will be rebroadcast in a couple years for people to laugh at... but the real stars are the idiot voters who support him. it'll show behind the scenes clips with Trump laughing about the insane poo he says and how he treats people and gets away with it, followed by clips of his rabid followers, mixed with endorsements from Stormfront, all part of the Clinton machine to finally get back at the vast right wing conspiracy...
Other than broken windows policing most of these I am fine with on the surface but it largely depends on how they are implemented. I agree with most of TN05's stances, but think that reporting and sensitivity training could be important. However, I think there has to be mandatory reporting of all uses of force (perhaps that meet a certain minimum criteria for injury caused) to a central database.
Sanders convictions aren't "let the Republicans into the White House at any cost," despite what you may think. He's pragmatic and knows he wouldn't win as independent. His views are closer to Hillary's than they are to any Republican candidate. Why would he waste supporter money and effort only to hand the election to a Republican?
Why would he? He's already said he isn't going to run as an independent. He saw what happened in 2000 and has no interest in being Ralph Nader. This is pretty funny tbh. I don't care much either way but boy does it look desperate. It is nice to see how little parties trust their voters.
teeray highlighted a situation where this is not valid. Just because your marriage (or those you commonly know) see extramarital sex as a breach of contract does not mean all marriages do. While this may not have been the primary target of AM's advertisement, it was a group of people that used the site.