For specifically me, as a member of a religious minority which would probably be repressed in Jesusland, probably Aynrandland; at least there I'm as bad off as everyone else. It's more difficult to judge (would need more detail) what it would be like to a member of the dominant ethnicity, which is presumably the same in both countries. From your description for someone of this ethnicity Jesusland sounds better, but only as a 'lesser of two very evils' type choice and more details are necessary.

Aynrandland sounds like I'd get cancer within a week, and me and any children would condemned as poor workers forever (especially without public education). Though would Ayn Rand and other "libertarians" really approve of corporations censoring the Internet?

His description of the environmental situation in Aynrandland reminded me to a great extent of Soviet environmental policy, ironically enough. I would agree that it doesn't sound like a state Ayn Rand would approve of -- calling it 'Corporateland' or 'Fordland' sounds more accurate.

While this is a field with so much potential for abuse it's scary, ultimately once modification of children (probably prenatally) can be made safe and predictable I see no reason it should be prevented.

Sure, he could.

A governor from a left-leaning state. Christie is the obvious answer, but Sandoval/Martinez/I think even Walker would all have at least a shot. Most of the Senators who are possibilities (Rubio/Ryan/Ayotte?) are too fresh to have a chance without something going very wrong. Corbett, lePage, and Snyder I exclude; Corbett will probably lose, lePage seems likely to get a second term now but only due to the divisions of the left in Maine, and Snyder's future remains quite murky -- I think some of our Michigan members have speculated he may not seek reelection.

But it's important to keep in mind that a week is an eternity in politics, and there are (rounding up) 184 weeks left until the election. Everything can change in 184 eternities -- for all we know, Ryan/Snyder will be beating Clinton by double-digits.

Denial of climate change is one of the most vile positions held by anyone in American politics.

Clearly the first. Cigarettes have a negative health impact on every single person who uses them. With proper supervision and monitoring in a controlled environment (like a shooting range), there's no reason children shouldn't be able to use guns (I know I did, though admittedly not at the age of 5).

Seems alright -- certainly somebody who can self-fund like McFadden will draw Democratic money here.

I identify my religion as Judaism, not because I practice the religion, but out of a general belief that "my ancestors were clearly right". Which I believe has its own name.

The word 'grumpy', except removing the /i/ and adding a /s/.

What about me, opebo?

I have no idea about you, Vosem.  Did you post a photo?  To me 'white' is of English, Irish, German/Dutch, Scandinavian or French descent.  Anything else is, well, not really as white as us (I happen to be English and French, and pale as pale can be - can't really go out in the sun at all).

From what I've gleaned, Vosem is some sort of Jew of Russian/Eastern European descent. And as a testament to how fluid and arbitrary racial classifications are, he would be considered white today. 50 years ago, he would not have been, and would have been persona non grata at any "respectable" university or country club in America.

Well, sure.   But he's still a Jew.  Its not precisely the same thing, n'est-ce pas?

He's right, but I'm a specific kind of Russian/Eastern European Jew, in that I am descended not from late-19th-century/early-20th-century immigration, like the vast majority of American Jews, but rather I am descended from the immigration wave of the 1990s. As such (unlike most American Jews) my native language is in fact Russian (I had to learn English when I first started elementary school from basically scratch) and I belong to a strong Republican-voting "we fled from communism" tradition, like the Cubans and Vietnamese.

What do I look like?

http://westlake.patch.com/articles/best-high-schools-list-released-where-does-westlake-rank

I'm the kid on the far left, in the blue sweatshirt. Judge for yourselves if I'm "white".

'Social conservatism' is, by definition, the cultural attitudes of the elderly. 'Social liberalism' is, by definition, the cultural attitudes of the youth. By definition, the latter will crowd out the former.

'Economic conservatism' is (in addition to being correct) an ideology, and is therefore, in a sense, not capable of dying; even thousands of years ago, when today was unimaginable, and thousands of years from now, when today is forgotten, similar policies were/will be pursued (and the same goes for 'economic leftism'). It can't really die.

Social conservatism doesn't really die out, it just has a new generation's prejudices become social norms. Restricting divorce and porn was a big social issue 50 years ago. Restricting contraception was a big deal 100 years ago or so. I'm sure we'll have a new social cause in 50 years that the lefties on this forum will dislike.

It's interesting how social conservatives end up on the losing side of every issue except abortion rights.

It's harder than you'd think to figure out whether social conservatives or social progressives 'won' Prohibition in the end.

How so?

Simple. In the 1910s, being pro-Prohibition was the 'social liberal' position of the youth and against it was the 'social conservative' position of the elderly. By the 1930s, this had flipped; the youth of the 1910s had aged and the new generation reawakened the conflict. This could plausibly happen, as well, in the unpredictable future, to a social issue of the modern day.

Come on guys, he's not 'white' in any sense that is meaningful in an Anglo-Saxon (and particularly American) culture.  90% of Americans wouldn't consider him 'white' and they'd be right.

What about me, opebo?

He's perhaps a tad too far to the left for it, but that might give him a leg up in a Democratic primary and he would hold the seat in all but the most heavily Republican of years against all but the very best Republican candidates.

I live in OH-16.

The presence of strong communist parties in Western Europe has certainly had a positive effect on public policy.

Certainly they've had a close-to-entirely/entirely negative effect since the end of the Second World War.

In principle cow meat should be legal to sell in India, but because of the religious issues associated with it, I don't think this is something that should be done anytime soon. Dog meat in the US? Certainly, yes it should.

If Madigan runs, what do you think more determined Republican candidates like Dillard/Rutherford will do?

I hadn't realized that Vander has been inactive for more than a year now...

Social Security fraud, which is quite a serious crime

A serious crime, really?

Eh...it depends on the format. But the second half of that sentence was worded too strongly anti-illegal-immigrant. I support amnesty

I'm voting Wildrose, obviously.

The USA is a giant country, and one where politics, in general, is much more individualistic and parties are more 'vague coalitions' than other countries where parties have tighter controls over members' rhetoric and actions. So, some politicians will soon drop it, others will adopt it. Perhaps it will get less common, though as it's still very effective in many places I doubt it will disappear entirely anytime in the near future.

I wouldn't have been born if the USSR didn't collapse, so...

Biology 8e AP* Edition, no doubt about it.

Oh, you have your own list? I've never read the Great Gatsby, so I can't really judge. Huck Finn and the Crucible are both books I haven't read for a while, but I enjoyed them back when I did read them. The high school's Drama Club did a performance of the Crucible when I was in the 8th grade (so I wasn't in it, but some close friends were), and I remember it as quite good and enthralling. So, Crucible, I suppose.

We should liberalize immigration law, to make it generally easier for people to immigrate to live permanently in the US. What to do with present illegals I'm not sure; many of them are also guilty of Social Security fraud, which is quite a serious crime. I'm in favor, generally speaking, of amnesty, but the logistics of it give me a headache.

I doubt Rogers runs, there hasn't been much chatter about Land beyond 'name-dropping' speculation, which makes me think she's unlikely, and I rather hope Amash doesn't run; I don't agree with him consistently but he's a positive influence on the House and a Senate run against Peters almost certainly would not be successful. In all honesty, this race is probably only good for a decoy...who's that fellow who lost to Stabenow in '06? Bouchard? He could do.

[and he certainly ran an FF foreign policy.]

I know I do. Bush's economic governance, while not great, was at least OK, and he certainly ran an FF foreign policy. I'd rather have him than the current President.

Ignoring whatever delusions you have about the recession, I'll offer you the chance to elaborate on this.

Bush ran reasonable and extremely successful policies with regards to conflicts in the Caucasus, in regards to epidemics and war in Africa, and in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His one mistake, launching the 2003 war in Iraq, is only really apparent in hindsight and without hindsight was clearly the correct decision to have made. Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out quite well; had McCain won the election in 2008, I'm confident today Iraq would be a solid American ally. (McCain compared it to South Korea after the Korean War, which I think is a good comparison). Obama reflexively pulled out, which was one of his greatest mistakes. (Not that going in wasn't a mistake, but pulling back once you're already there is also rarely a good move).