On campaign finance or foreign involvement, Trump is maybe the least terrible, in economics, Kasich is better. I wouldn't say anything similar about Cruz on any issue, and none of them have great social policy.

People dying has nothing to do with their health? It has to do largely with their socioeconomic class? Is this some ultra-literal Social Darwinism?

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/why-american-babies-die/381008/

So wouldn't the obvious answer be a healthcare program where that literally ceases to be an issue?

If you don't have the money to raise a baby properly, you shouldn't have one and rely on taxpayers to raise the baby for you.

That's not entirely in the hands of the mother.

There are social pressures you're completely ignoring that come from parents or the husband, and that doesn't even touch on children who weren't planned to be born, which is, you know, mostly everyone.

as when you condemn abortion, stigmatize contraceptives, and in general don't have social education politics from which the mother cab benefit

@leon1122
"If you don't have the money to raise a baby properly, you shouldn't have one and rely on taxpayers to raise the baby for you."

No, you're mentality is medieval and cruel.

It is clearly shown that poor countries tend to have higher child mortality, and larger families. The effects of being poor tend to include havig more children - because they also tend to involve subsistance agriculture and needing to use offspring as farm labour. If 1 in 4 children dies then you tend to see 8 children born per woman, (so 6 will survive on average) This is a viable strategy.

When child mortality drops, so do family sizes, and then poverty can be escaped.

Choosing to live in a society where collectively we all share responcibility for infrastructure, for education, for policing, for fire services, and for health care, is my preference. And I would rather you stay as far away from me as you possibly can. Preferable in some wildnerness where i don't have to worry about your backward views influencing others.

*your, not you're.

Seriously, applying your logic.

Fire services: if you can't afford fire insurance, you should not choose to have a home and expect to rely on the tax payers to put out fires.

Police services: if you can't afford private security, you should not have personal property and expect to rely on the tax payers to protect your property rights.

Health care: if you can't afford health care to keep your child alive, you should not have children and expect to rely on the tax payers to keep your baby healthy.

(Harder to draw exact analogies for infrastructure - roads, electricity, water supply, internet access, and Education - whether primary secondary or college. But the same principle applies. Either you live in a libertarian utopia or the real world and accept we are collectively better off including everyone and helping each other out...)

if you don't have the money to feed your stomach propperly, you shouldn't have a stomach

Well, that's actually true. People who starved to death don't have stomachs.

High birth rates are a large cause for poor standards of living and inability to escape from poverty. In developing countries, these children could help with farm work, but that is not true in the urban center of the US and other developed countries. The high birth rate among African Americans can at least partially be attributed to the perverse government system that gives poor people aid for having children, thus encouraging them to have more children that they cannot afford. You know what's medieval and cruel? Bringing children into a world of suffering and poverty.

No Leon, coorelation does not imply causation.

High birth rates and poverty go togther, true, but both are to blame. If you take the 'natural state of humanity' as hobbes did, as nasty, brutish and short. Hobbes also said poor and solitary.

With poverty and large families together we have something less solitary than Hobbes imagined. Safer in large family groups. And entirely valid.

But there is an alternative. You can choose to co-exist in the modern society which we have built, one without this kind of poverty, you can choose to accept that we thrive when we act collectively. When we pay taxes, build roads, schools and hospitals.

The natural responce to poverty is to have lots of children, at least some of them will make it. Your responce os to ignore that families were usually bigger in the past, and some people have not had the advantage of leaving that poverty stricten past behind.

You instead blame the support society has offered to help them out of that situation. Like they started having bigger families because of social welfare? Do you have any evidence? Or is it just te logic of a person who hasn't lived in poverty, how many families living off of state assistance have you shared a home with? How did you gain your insight into their decisions? Other than arm-chair logic??

@"You know what's medieval and cruel? Bringing children into a world of suffering and poverty." - i happen to agree, and that is why i support a universal basic income.

"Bringing children into a world of suffering and poverty."

Agreed, that's a good reason to support unfettered access to abortion, which is done by responsible people who know they cannot support more children.

"It has very little to do with healthcare programs."

Incorrect, healthcare education is poor. If people knew how to use contraception properly, there would be lower incidents of unplanned pregnancy. This information is distributed by healthcare programs in poor areas. Also, women of means are more likely to have access to doctors and followup appointments. For example, there was a case of a woman who got pregnant who had an IUD that was incorrectly put in. If she had a follow up this would have been discovered, instead she got pregnant.

Another problem is widespread drug use. Drug users are far more likely to have kid after kid without thinking about it. People who are clean are more likely to get abortions.

"Black babies in the US die at a higher rate because African Americans are generally poorer. It has very little to do with healthcare programs."

You realize your Atlantic link highlights the disparity between the outcomes for infants born to poor minority mothers in the US and similar infants in western Europe, meaning that simply dismissing the matter with "It's because they're poor" is precisely the wrong response...right? Please tell me you actually *read* the article you cited, leon.

Coming up on the New York primary, while Trump is pushing Made in America to make America Great Again, his daughter's, Ivana's, company was forced by the government to recall Made in China scarves sold in high end stores because the material was a fire hazard. It's true that kids don't listen to their parents or maybe she did in order to get richer.

Thanks for bumping this, I almost forgot to update from this Tuesday.

Wisconsin wasnt a blowout for either party. Bernie Sanders and Cruz both won by about 13 .

What I do think is that these were both significant wins. Cruz has shown his capacity to grind the trump train to a halt, and is now one state closer to preventing Trump from getting the nomination so easily in the convention in July.

On the other side, Bernie Sanders with his 6th consecutive victory shows that the race is now taking place in his territory. If he keeps this momentum, he is projected to surpass Hillary clinton in terms of pledged delegates, and the superdelegates will have to decide on whether or not to hold their ground with Hillary, at the risk of tearing apart the Democratic Party.

Trump's ties are made in China. He's made no secret of this he always says he's exploiting the rules to benefit himself. Rayon is highly flammable in general but I'm sure this will turn into an anti-China thing somehow.

He's accentuating how ridiculous the current situation is so people will see the need for change.

leon1122: That makes no sense.

Bernie has won 7 of the last 8 contests for which results have been made available by landslides and is likely to win by a landslide in an 8th contest in two days. :-)

Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!

@ JECE He is saying that even though he is anti-free trade, he must play by those rules to remain competitive in America. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the billionaire he is today.

Also, Clinton had a 7 win streak as well, but I don't hear anyone mention that.

lol everyone mentioned that. That was the day she took all 5 states, including Illinois an most surprisingly missouri. It was everywhere.

1302 Clinton Vs 1088 Sanders.

Still too close to call.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#/media/File%3ADemocratic_primary_gap.png

This shows the Hillary has been steadily gaining a lead on Bernie, until Arizona when the trend started to reverse... We'll see whether he can regain the rest of the ground or not.