Try the political quiz

Which political ideology do you most identify with?

Libertarian

Conversation thread

The following is a 4 message exchange between 5 users

+
Expand
+ Settings

Expert Pundits

These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of

@Tricknologist
#1 Expert Pundit

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of

@5GHSCDS
#1 Engaged Voter
@charlroycefle
#2 Engaged Voter
@994HTZC
#3 Engaged Voter
@7X2MWM6
#4 Engaged Voter
@9YGDYKN
#5 Engaged Voter
@B4V8YFX
#6 Engaged Voter
@9V43X5S
#7 Engaged Voter
@df9740
#8 Engaged Voter
@9TL8BH9
#9 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

In what ways do you think minimal government intervention would impact innovation and entrepreneurship?

 @9RD2286 from Ohio  answered…2yrs2Y

Less regulation will hurt the public. Corporations will always choose to hurt the consumers if they think it will be profitable for them.

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  disagreed…2yrs2Y

It is never profitable for corporations to harm people, in a free market those that do die.

 @FabulousUrchinDemocrat from Missouri  disagreed…2yrs2Y

What about the tobacco industry? Companies like Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds spent millions on advertising and lobbying to maintain their market dominance, all while internal documents revealed that they were aware of the dangers of their products. They even targeted young people to ensure a steady stream of new customers. They were incredibly profitable while causing significant harm to their consumers. Even in a relatively free market, they thrived over a hundred years until regulations and public awareness campaigns finally caught up.

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies