The lynchings will continue, get used to it. The left/media is throwing the biggest political tantrum I've ever seen.

When you hobnob with Richard Branson, you've got to have the coin!

Why do mega rich business people become far left kooks?  Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Branson, Brian Roberts, Igor of Disney, anyone that heads Goldman Sachs, like John Corzine, etc.  Is this just the global, elitist, statist cool thing to do?

I often wonder that. It's such a good question.  I have some theories. You would think since many of them got rich via capitalism that they wouldn't be leftist, but then you have to remember a leftist NEVER intends to live by the rules he makes for everyone else.

Theory number 1:  Like many people their politics is more a result of their background and social circle, not critical thinking, and they are usually urban, so that would lean them Democrat.  Just because they are smart and rich does not necessarily mean they applied the same critical thinking to politics that they applied to their business.

In fact, I have come to believe that BECAUSE celebrities and rich businessmen are so focused on whatever made them rich, they spend their time on that and so have a deficit in other areas.  A person has to apply independent thought and intelligence to politics in order to escape the brainwashing of the media. Maybe these people just can't be bothered.

I think this is a big problem with musicians.  Extremely good musicians dedicate a lot of their days to making their music.  Their music touches our deepest heartstrings.  But when musicians apply a political slant to their songs, because they are genius with music, people believe they are also genius with their lyrics.  Because of the emotional rapture one feels with the melody, one MISTAKENLY believes the lyrics are equally divinely inspired.  I have come to believe that they are NOT. That many musicians, despite their musical talent, are some of the stupidest most ignorant people alive on matters of politics and this is possibly because they are more interested in their music than in learning a lot about other things in the world.

Theory number 2: Situational Acquired Narcissism. Very rich and very famous people over time tend to display symptoms of the personality disorder known as narcissism, but it is not organic so much as a result of their fame. Because everyone else puts them on a pedestal they start to believe it themselves.  Like any narcissist, they then have the false  belief that their ideas are better than others' and that they know better how to run the world than others. This leads directly to economic collectivism in all its forms, because economic collectivism is about a central authority controlling everybody else. Naturally, like all leftists, they put themselves as part of this authority.

Theory number 3: A bit of inborn narcissism, which may be the very reason they were able to become so rich. This means they are skilled at using people for their own gain.  They have no real ideals other than themselves: enriching themselves is their only goal.  So their leftism doesn't really have anything to do with real beliefs in the ideal of leftist utopia.  These people (born narcissists) see others as existing only to benefit themselves and so their supposed leftism is nothing more than manipulation of others for their own purposes. Example, they don't really want to save the planet for all humanity; they are only talking "green" for whatever gain it brings their own pockets.

These people will also align themselves with whatever group they feel will come out on top, always.  Because leftism is always about control, with the leftist on top, they naturally are drawn toward the left. True free market capitalism is a system that respects the intelligence of every individual to manage his own micro-economy.  The narcissist isn't capable of granting anyone else any intelligence or wisdom, so might not be able to grasp this concept.

The hypocrisy we are about to witness from the radical Alt-Left-government-media-complex will be both hysterical, and terrifying.

'Gimp

If people didn't feel entitled to have their childbirth paid for by somebody else, they would be very motivated to find cheaper ways to get the job done.  It is insane that giving birth should cost $18,000.  Absent a medical problem, most births could happen naturally at home. Childbirth is not a disease.  "Medical" insurance shouldn't cover it.  If you can't afford to pay for getting a baby into this world, don't have one, or have one cheaply at home.

There is a whole sordid history of how women were maneuvered into thinking hospitals were a better  place to give birth and it has blown up in to a huge profit making industry with a lot of terrible consequences from way too many unnecessary interventions. The C-section rate is insane, and based mostly on defensive medicine (lawsuits), and usually cascading from a domino effect beginning with a "small" intervention.

"Healthcare" is a multi billion dollar "industry" in the US, and Obamacare put it on steroids, hence why you see so much opposition in congress to repeal it. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/07/obamacare-cost-spike-is-trump-s-fault-aca-architect-says.html

 Yep, now the rising cost of Obamacare are the fault of Trump.............

 And none other than the asshat Jonathan Gruber.  Remember him?  He was caught on tape saying “The stupidity of the American voter … was really critical for the thing to pass" with regards to Obamacare.

ObamaCare co-architect Jonathan Gruber -- who infamously said “the stupidity of the American voter” helped get the measure to become law -- now blames Trump for rising premium costs.

“Whose fault is this?” Gruber asked on “Fox News Sunday.” “Since President Trump has been elected … premiums are going up and insurers are exiting.”

Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor, argued that perceived rising premium costs are really a one-time increase in 2016 to cover “massively underpriced” policies for the first two years of the 2010 law.

The high employment under Obama was fake, but the same thing under Cheeto Benito has to be true.  Whatever.

Correct. I don't think anybody here will argue that point. I think the point trying to be made instead was that under Obama the unemployment rate was factoring in only certain elements which made the unemployment rate look lower than it really was.

I do three. Any time you have a group disperse to different locations they will evolve separately. Their language, culture, and even physical characteristics will diverge over time.

Maybe all Jewish people retain a certain tribalism that embraces socialist/communist property division, you redistribute wealth, which is pretty basic to leftism including Democrats.  It's a system that works well in small groups but fails spectacularly in large nation states.

I have heard some Jewish Democrats talk in support of Israel when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. On that issue they don't agree with their fellow Democrats, but on gun control, social programs, etc, they are liberals.  That's fair enough, I respect it when people take stands on the different issues without falling lockstep with their chosen party.