Bamont

Bah, I could barely make it a minute.

The idea that Christians have a monopoly on the word marriage is absolutely astounding to me. The arrogance behind making such a claim (in a book that existed long before Protestants did) is very American of him and others. The etymology of marriage and "unions" actually predates Christianity by over a thousand years. The Bible didn't coin the term marriage, and people need to stop buying into this rhetoric.

For me, I've always been under the impression that.. "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married."

We all know that evolution is real and generally don't talk about it in terms of "belief".

Thank you. Evolution is not a belief; evolution is a fact.

No it isn't, it's a theory.

Evolution, that is the biological change over time, is a fact. The theory of evolution is what best explains that fact.

implementing a 3% cap on rent increases per year

So what happens when inflation and property taxes increase by more than 3% in a given year? What happens if the property value of an area increases and now the real estate has become much more valuable? Your plan seems to infer that landlords should swallow the former and not be allowed to profit with the latter. And have you considered what rent control does to supply? If an investor or entrepreneur sees that kind of potential for loss, they'll be unlikely to invest in rental properties which will drive down the overall supply. There are actual studies on this and rent control is one of the least effective methods of actually controlling rent prices (and often works in the opposite direction by starving the market).

Wouldn't it be smarter to change zoning laws so more multifamily properties can be built in densely populated areas? How about restricting single family construction? There are a lot better ways to address this problem, and the fact that you went with rent control tells me you either haven't researched these alternatives or are simply pandering to progressives on social media.

Honestly? This is why it's difficult for me and a lot of other voters to take progressives seriously. The principle behind your proposal is great, but even a cursory glance at the specifics make me want to run away from it. It's like this with basically every single one of you and I just can't fathom how you expect to win with these kinds of glaring holes in your plans.

While I appreciate you doing this AMA, I think you're unfortunately part of a systemic problem in this country with regard to how we treat offenders. There's a reason why the recidivism rate in the United States is so high in comparison to others: most other wealthy, industrialized nations do the exact opposite of what you just stated. They rehabilitate people while they're incarcerated, and not only is this healthy for society, it's also healthy for criminals.

Essentially, your approach double-dips. Not only do you punish them while providing no (or very few) opportunities to better themselves, but you also want to wait until they're phased back into society (after being locked up with other violent offenders in fairly isolated conditions) to start the rehabilitation process. How much sense does that make, really?

I recall watching a documentary where a lifer earned his college degree and started helping other inmates get their GEDs and take some college courses while incarcerated. The average recidivism rate for the rest of the prison was almost 75%, and [those he taught] teetered at around 20%. There's an obvious connection between providing people with the tools and education necessary and a reduction in the propensity of crime.