I was part of a team choosing charities for a Fortune 50. We had analysis of ROI for any giving, and if the ROI (free media coverage in places seen by CEOs, CFOs, sales influencers, political influencers), then we would stop funding. Really, there was no true charity.

I've watched two relatives suffer in pain at CA hospitals. As a result, I bought drugs on the street. Hospital policy limits narcotics, and doctors are afraid to lose their license. Which is worse? Street drugs or policies to create suffering?

I really feel like Dr. Reich understates the problem dramatically. Some focus on AI impact on jobs, some focus on growth, some focus on freedoms - but AI will change everything - and those "externalities" of the change will impact all these things far more.

The problem is that some country will have the superior AI first and thus the ability control everything. This is an arms race. So getting rid of our technocrats has a big downside, and doesn't really solve anything.

History - civil rights, environmental laws, imprisoning those who harm people, arresting those who harm people, labor rights - these have all been done by States in defiance of Federal Laws and Courts. We need leaders who will lead again.

Yes. States rights were taken by states, and only later "given" by the Federal government. States ignored Federal laws, ignored courts, and simply enforced their own laws to arrest people, imprison people, and protect their people. States can stop corrupt politicians and corrupt courts.

Yes. There is a history of this. States, historically, have refused to go along with Federal laws and courts. The made their own rules - and we now politely call those "states rights" - but they were rights which were taken, not voluntarily given except when rewriting history.

But...we aren't all on the same side. That is simply a projection of your hopes and beliefs. Actual data says that there are distinctly different values and distinctly different levels of willingness to inflict harm in order to force those values on others. Sure, some values align - but some don't.

People have forgotten that what we now, in hindsight, call "states rights" were actually acquired when states refused to surrender to the authority of Federal laws and directives. History we we need to remember.

I still don't get the defense of Hillary. I watched on TV and was amazed when she said "deplorables"...followed by a long pause so we knew what she meant, then added words to minimize what she'd said. The same trick Trump often uses. Neither side is wearing a white hat. Genuine grievances dismissed.

Reminds me of Trump saying something caustic that he really means - and then elaborates to dismiss it. She definitely paused after the word "deplorables" - letting it sink in for those who agreed with that. Yet even the worst Trump supporters have genuine grievances with no other realistic recourse.

Wait..I watched her making a speech - and she definitely described Trump supporters as deplorable. It stood out when she said it. Remnick & Klein seem pretty accurate to me. She dismissed a lot of people's genuine grievances.

I'm less happy with his leadership. States Rights originated when states refused to follow Fed decisions. States overruled Supreme Court decisions and ignored Federal regulations. No need for court fights. That is history, and we need leaders who can stand up to corrupt politicians and courts.