|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Keep in mind that concerned people are generally prone to exaggerate the issues they are facing. Quite rightly, too, because exaggeration and big numbers are often the only way to get unconcerned people to pay any attention to them. This is why you still hear 78 cents on the dollar repeated ad nauseam when it misrepresents the true magnitude of the wage gap once you control for occupation, even though the wage gap still exists and is meaningful afterwards.
The problem comes when unconcerned people use this tendency as a way to say the complaints are not an issue at all.
Of course, questions like the ones in the poll are so bogged down in "well what really constitutes significant or largely gone" that you can't really meet in the middle. I'd prefer Likert scale breakdown on a question like that really.
That question gets extra bonus points for stupidity because you can easily agree with both halves (and in fact I think I would). A lot of the incredibly crippling and awful obstacles are gone compared to even half a century ago, but there's still significant things that make it more difficult for women in many professions to get ahead.
|
im actually a bit terrified that trump reins it in for the next 3 months and everyone forgets about the previous 18 months.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The Justice Department and the FBI are conducting a wide-ranging investigation into allegations of corrupt dealings by the government of former Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych, including the hiring of Washington lobbyists for the regime by former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a senior law enforcement official confirmed to Yahoo News.
The investigation, which was first reported by CNN, began two years ago after Yanukovych fled Kiev to Moscow and was replaced by the current government of Petro Poroshenko, the official said. But the inquiry has expanded in recent weeks in the wake of the discovery of documents showing $12.7 million in payments to Manafort by Yanukovych’s Party of Regions political party. Investigators are also looking into reports that Manafort recruited two top Washington lobbying firms to advocate on behalf of a Belgian nonprofit that investigators now believe may have served as a front for Yanukovych’s party. Neither of the firms, the Mercury Group and the Podesta Group, registered with the U.S. Justice Department as foreign agents — a requirement if they represented a foreign government or political party.
The disclosure of the Justice Department investigation came on the same day that Manafort stepped down as Trump’s campaign chairman — news that sent new shockwaves through Republican circles. Manafort, who served for years as a campaign consultant to Yanukovych, declined requests for comment. But a close associate of his who asked not to be identified explained his resignation this way: Manafort “is not going to take orders or relinquish power to people like” Kellyanne Conway, the new Trump campaign manager, and Steve Bannon, the newly named CEO of the campaign. The Manafort associate also blamed the rapidly unfolding Ukraine allegations on “oppo research” being spread by Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager and a bitter foe of Manafort
Ken Gross, a lawyer at Skadden Arps, which represents the Mercury Group, one of the lobbying firms recruited by Manafort, told Yahoo News that his firm has been “engaged to look into the matter” of whether Mercury was required to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department when, at Manafort’s request, it agreed to represent the Brussels-based European Centre for a Modern Ukraine in 2012. Lobbying reports reviewed by Yahoo News show that the firms sought to burnish Yanokovych’s reputation and lobbied against congressional resolutions condemning the regime’s treatment of political opponents and opposing Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Another firm, the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, was also recruited by a Manafort deputy and lobbied for the European Centre. In a lengthy statement Friday, the Podesta Group said it had retained another Washington law firm, Caplin & Drysdale,“to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre’s potential ties to foreign governments or political parties.”
The statement added: “When the Centre became a client, it certified in writing that ‘none of the activities of the Centre are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.’ We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale’s review, including possible legal action against the Centre.”
Sevgirl Musaieva, editor of Ukrainskaye Pravda, a newspaper that has conducted multiple investigations into corruption under the Yanukovich regime, told Yahoo News that she first met with a team of FBI agents at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev two years ago. At the time, the new government headed by Poroshenko had asked the FBI for assistance in tracking down millions of dollars that it believed had been stolen by Yanukovych and his associates before they fled Kiev. “The FBI came to Kiev and started an investigation,” she said. They asked her detailed questions about what she knew about allegations of corrupt dealings by the Yanukovych regime.
But sources familiar with the probe say it expanded after a Ukrainian anticorruption bureau discovered a “black book” said to show “off-the-books” cash payments from the party to Manafort totaling $12.7 million between 2007 and 2012. Entries show that some of the payments were signed by a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament who was also a board member of the European Centre. Documents also purportedly show payments to the executive director of the center, according to a source familiar with the probe, reinforcing suspicions that the group was fronting for Yanukovych’s political party.
Source
|
On August 21 2016 01:52 PassiveAce wrote:
im actually a bit terrified that trump reins it in for the next 3 months and everyone forgets about the previous 18 months.
There is no way the Democrats will not bombard the airwaves with him dumb quotes if that happens.
|
On August 21 2016 01:52 PassiveAce wrote:
im actually a bit terrified that trump reins it in for the next 3 months and everyone forgets about the previous 18 months.
Last night's little plea to African Americans shows we won't have to worry about that too much. He can't help going off script and he's going to get in trouble.
|
On August 20 2016 23:29 KwarK wrote:
Danglars,
Given Saudi Arabia's ongoing funding of radical Islam across the world, the established links to Al Qaeda and a deliberate policy of exporting Wahhabism I'm not sure how Iran is getting so much hate. Yes, Iran sponsors Hezbollah as a Shi'a proxy and I disapprove of that but the United States itself has a long history of funding and supporting shitty proxies, a good number of which turned out to be worse than Hezbollah and one of which turned out to be Iran. In material terms their support of Hezbollah right now amounts to equipping them to fight ISIS which it's very hard to get upset about, even if I quite like it when both sides suffer casualties.
You may think the nuclear inspection provisions are weak or they're not. My understanding is that there is constant access and surveillance to the Natanz facility which is the home of the Iranian nuclear program but for places where they're not currently doing nuclear research there isn't constant access so if they started doing nuclear stuff elsewhere then there might be a delay. Some talking heads said this makes the entire deal questionable, others argued that if Iran tried to assemble a nuclear program, make progress and then dismantle and cover up the evidence of that progress in <24 days then we'd notice that in the inspections. Either way though, without a deal Iran was going to get a bomb. That's the benchmark for failure that we need to be measuring this against. Even if they subsequently develop a bomb during the deal they'll be doing so without 97% of their enriched uranium (which they can't fake surrendering) and 70% of their centrifuges (95% if you assume the Natanz ones can't be used). If you believe Iran was inevitably going to get a bomb then firstly, if the deal prevents that then that's a fucking amazing deal and secondly, if the deal creates a coalition to deal with that outcome, it's still a good deal. The deal commits Russia and China, along with America's traditional allies, to sanctions should Iran fail to comply whereas before those sanctions were unsustainable. If they still try to get a bomb and the deal doesn't prevent them then the world in which they complete a bomb is a far better world for the United States for the deal existing, even though the primary goal failed.
Lastly, Iran is a sovereign state that was building a bomb, in my opinion largely as a guarantee of their national sovereignty against the Bush doctrine which specifically named them as a target. Our rhetoric towards Iran is only a little short of what North Korea constantly threatens us with and given the actual invasions of two of her neighbours already I absolutely refuse to fault them for seeking the weapon which traditionally serves as the guarantee of national sovereignty. I'd rather they didn't have a bomb but in terms of whether or not they need one, they do. There is a power hostile to them engaging in extremely hostile rhetoric that has a proven recent history of military intervention in the region. The United States created a situation in which for Iran enduring sanctions was the lesser of two evils, both of which were American creations. And even if you don't see it that way, China and Russia clearly did and wanted to neuter the sanctions. Either the United States decides that Iran is intolerable and engages in another pre-emptive attack in the region or it makes a deal that accepts the existence of Iran. A middle ground like halfheartedly supporting student protests only to do nothing when Tienanmen plays out again does nothing but continue to reinforce the need for a bomb without doing anything to slow them down or build a coalition should they get one anyway.
The hand was horribly, horribly misplayed by Bush and was lost before Obama took office. China and Russia were hugely sympathetic to the Iranian situation, they have nukes for the exact same reason Iran wants them. Bush's combination of combative rhetoric and erosion of international support broke the sanctions and left unilateral military action as the only real way of stopping Iran externally. Obama had to fold the hand or see it timeout anyway, that he was able to extract commitments not just from Iran but also from Russia and China in exchange for doing nothing but accepting the status quo is a huge diplomatic coup.
In the land of bad choices for allies or working partners in the middle east, Saudi Arabia is the better choice between that and this new pivot towards Iran. For their eagerness for nuclear weapons, history of imprisonment of American citizens, state support for terrorism, continued ballistic weapons testing, belligerence towards Israel, and probably a half dozen more than I'm forgetting at this moment. But these persisting disagreements on the best thrust of American Middle East policy are very hardened. I only am engaged in a surface level of mutual understanding, particularly the laughable claim that because it's Obama the hatred rises. I have no hope of persuading anyone that the interests I consider overriding ought to be considered universally overriding other nuanced interests, and the trail of money and Wahhabism is not one I easily displace from top spot. In this thread, the only useful discussion is when new current events push the policy considerations to the forefront because it's made when judging specific treaties, foreign funding, belligerence. For the rest, you arrived at your perspective on the middle east alone without being argued into it, and you'll have to argue yourself out as the evidence mounts.
My understanding is that secret deals were uncovered by congressional probing and more likely exist. National Review covered some of what made even what we know of the deal shaky. For the visible portions, it's poor enforcement of inadequate goals. The treaty was still a path to a bomb, and that shouldn't be present in any deal. Everything I've read and analyzed show Iran has great latitude to deny inspectors and claim everything's fine while also hiding discovered violations from the public. If this was a good plan where Iran suddenly stops pursuing atomic weapons and directly supporting terrorism in return for a gradual release of money, I'd be appalled at the enforcement provisions.
I have a very different view of what respect America should give sovereign states wanting to develop nuclear weapons. Iran, with it's constant calls for Death to Israel and Death to America and state sponsored terrorism against our allies is in the class of countries that must be prevented from ever developing them. First with tougher sanctions and embargoes, and with a willingness for military action should the fanatical regime not relent. You can see a glimpse of that policy in action with the 1986 airstrikes on Libya in response to their murderous insanity. America's interests matter in America's foreign policy and threats to our allies and trading partners should be responded to seriously--the biggest nuclear threats severely. It's the same junk that you'll see with xDaunt talking about eliminating ISIS with total war. The debates in this enlightened western Republic reflect an unwillingness to engage in it to defend its own interests and those of its allies. And on the related matter, the US should support Iranian-led student regimes trying to overthrow their government like happened in the Obama presidency and went unsupported even vocally.
Bush did badly to attempt to erect a democratic state with no existing civil society. Obama did worse to withdraw forces and leave the Taliban and ISIS to reassert control, not to mention original policy towards Syria, Libya, and Russia, and America's declining relations with much of the world's Western nations. The next president should work to undo the mistakes both presidents made and I'm unsure either is equipped.
|
Looks like they're only rigged when they don't favor him
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In all fairness that graph seems to also skew towards complaining about rigging in the primaries, where he was clearly ahead.
|
Danglars -> how much do you wish to spend on middle east projects, for the military and nation-building expenses? (either in total, or as an annual expenditure)
War with Iran sounds awfully expensive to me.
not clear what oyu mean by this:
"The debates in this enlightened western Republic reflect an unwillingness to engage in it to defend its own interests and those of its allies. "
from what I see it's mostly just a disagreement with you about balancing the various interests.
|
On August 21 2016 04:21 zlefin wrote:
Danglars -> how much do you wish to spend on middle east projects, for the military and nation-building expenses? (either in total, or as an annual expenditure)
War with Iran sounds awfully expensive to me.
not clear what oyu mean by this:
"The debates in this enlightened western Republic reflect an unwillingness to engage in it to defend its own interests and those of its allies. "
from what I see it's mostly just a disagreement with you about balancing the various interests. War is expensive, and like past world wars, not budgetable. It depends how committed Iran is to it's own destruction in the face of a future strong nation bent on preserving it's trading partners and regional stability. On principle, the nation's military is one of the few appropriate uses of taxed revenue at a federal level and ought to be expensive as total expenditure, which it's not.
You quoted the a line present in a paragraph referencing xDaunt's double foray into what it would take to defeat ISIS. Do you recall? The response had a lot of shock and horror. Reread the context of the line and that messy business of continuation of diplomacy by other means.
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 21 2016 03:56 Danglars wrote:
I have a very different view of what respect America should give sovereign states wanting to develop nuclear weapons. Iran, with it's constant calls for Death to Israel and Death to America and state sponsored terrorism against our allies is in the class of countries that must be prevented from ever developing them. First with tougher sanctions and embargoes, and with a willingness for military action should the fanatical regime not relent.
Just to be clear, you'd advocate invasion of Iran if, hypothetically, they were ever actively involved in developing a nuclear weapon and within, say, 24 months of completion? Am I understanding you correctly?
Also, if that it is an accurate assessment of your views, how is that not an extremely good reason for them to have a nuclear weapon from their perspective, given the historical success of nuclear deterrents? Even if they have zero desire to ever use it offensively that kind of rhetoric from a superior military power with the history the US has is enough to justify the defensive purpose of one to them.
That said, if a full invasion of Iran is something that you'd support and pay the necessary toll in taxes and lives then at least you're no hypocrite. It's the people who oppose military adventurism and advocate making deals who simultaneously attack the deal that confuse me.
|
On August 21 2016 03:56 Danglars wrote:
Bush did badly to attempt to erect a democratic state with no existing civil society. Obama did worse to withdraw forces and leave the Taliban and ISIS to reassert control, not to mention original policy towards Syria, Libya, and Russia, and America's declining relations with much of the world's Western nations. The next president should work to undo the mistakes both presidents made and I'm unsure either is equipped.
I'm not even gonna touch on how exactly having to deal with the consequences of an issue is worse than creating the issue, or how staying in Iraq would have been a solution rather than a temporary suppression of symptoms until the inevitable leave whether 5 years ago or 50 years from now. Instead let's do some basic self reflection.
Let's imagine an alternate reality where the US still controls most of Iraq in 2016, Obama refused to withdraw the troops despite popular demand and vetoes any Congress bills pushing for withdrawal. ISIS still exists but they never became the global scarecrow they are over here, there are only some sporadic flareups in Iraq, Syria is relatively fine and still ruled by Assad. Does the Danglars of that reality shit on that version of Obama for undemocratically spending his tax money and a a bunch of American lives to control a place on the other side of the world where not much has happend for years? Or does he predict that leaving might have more than just a local negative effect, put aside what party Obama is from, and praise him for doing what's right (according to current Danglars) in the face of adversity?
|
On August 21 2016 04:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 04:21 zlefin wrote:
Danglars -> how much do you wish to spend on middle east projects, for the military and nation-building expenses? (either in total, or as an annual expenditure)
War with Iran sounds awfully expensive to me.
not clear what oyu mean by this:
"The debates in this enlightened western Republic reflect an unwillingness to engage in it to defend its own interests and those of its allies. "
from what I see it's mostly just a disagreement with you about balancing the various interests. War is expensive, and like past world wars, not budgetable. It depends how committed Iran is to it's own destruction in the face of a future strong nation bent on preserving it's trading partners and regional stability. On principle, the nation's military is one of the few appropriate uses of taxed revenue at a federal level and ought to be expensive as total expenditure, which it's not. You quoted the a line present in a paragraph referencing xDaunt's double foray into what it would take to defeat ISIS. Do you recall? The response had a lot of shock and horror. Reread the context of the line and that messy business of continuation of diplomacy by other means.
war is always budgetable. And it's always worth considering the cost; ww2, sure given how dangerous they were.
Iran, seems a bit more assessable. It'd probably be $3 trillion I'd reckon, based on the Iraq and Afghan costs. though it could be a fair bit higher or lower based on what your war goals are.
I read the entire paragraph, and I'm still not sure what you meant by the statement. the debates seem fairly complete to me, and having considered all the options
|
On August 21 2016 04:40 KwarK wrote:
Just to be clear, you'd advocate invasion of Iran if, hypothetically, they were ever actively involved in developing a nuclear weapon and within, say, 24 months of completion? Am I understanding you correctly?
Also, if that it is an accurate assessment of your views, how is that not an extremely good reason for them to have a nuclear weapon from their perspective, given the historical success of nuclear deterrents? Even if they have zero desire to ever use it offensively that kind of rhetoric from a superior military power with the history the US has is enough to justify the defensive purpose of one to them.
That said, if a full invasion of Iran is something that you'd support and pay the necessary toll in taxes and lives then at least you're no hypocrite. It's the people who oppose military adventurism and advocate making deals who simultaneously attack the deal that confuse me.
To be clear, the reason I cited the 1986 Libyan airstrikes in my reponse is because when countries know you're serious, they generally act in interest of their self-preservation. This is all in context of the hypothetical that increased sanctions are ineffective. Also negotiations on the current level of humanitarian aid; aim to hurt others and bully your neighbors long enough that you're believed, and you'll feel the hurt yourself. I'm open to many different plans to rethink the nonmilitary options that don't terminate in legally justifying Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons. It's that current and past attempts (perhaps not Bush-era) have been ineffective due to the state department's ideological bent and what passes for expert analysis of the situation. Do not be eager for war, and building hypotheticals upon hypotheticals is not someplace I'm going. Iran has very real reason to doubt America's resolve in person given the clusterfuck of America's foreign policy under Obama and the misplaced bent towards Democracy-Now nation building under Bush. See Obama's Red Line on Syria.
I'm against putting seven asterisks on foreign policy actions considering this nation with every reason to believe America's in the business of ransom payments and giving away the store for sheets of paper with signatures. Something must be said for talking tough that reflects an actual willingness to follow through and talking tough knowing the words are the furthest America's arm will go ... or maybe a military exercise in your general direction. With a look towards the Soviet Union, Libya, and even Iran's own hostage crisis, there's much reason to hope.
|
The US isn't the only nation on the world stage any more. China and Russia are backing the Iran-Syria and now also Iraq triangle which are pretty much the relevant countries at the heart of the Middle-East. The "fight me IRL" attitude would only work if Iran actually would be sitting around isolated and US could put on the thumbscrews without any repercussions from other world powers. This goes pretty much for all of these proxy war-zones.
|
danglars -> are you aware of the reason why increased sanctions vs Iran were not a viable option? (if yes, that's fine, just wanted to be sure)
|
United States41983 Posts
That is a rational and coherent stance but not one that I think is realistically applicable. I don't believe that in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan the US government could get the necessary authorization from Congress to stage a pre-emptive attack on Iran, let alone sufficient support internationally to justify it. The United States didn't even have the sway to keep the sanctions in place, let alone to escalate it to a full on invasion. I mean obviously the United States is the only remaining superpower and could simply dismiss international law and ignore the opposition of the UN, presumably vetoing any condemnation of the invasion within the UN. But the prestige and status of the US internationally, with both her allies and her rivals, is built on the stable postwar paradigm of a responsible and prudent superpower. The theoretical ability is not necessarily backed with a practical ability and Iran knows that. That's why I say that Obama inherited a weak hand.
|
On August 21 2016 04:50 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 04:33 Danglars wrote:On August 21 2016 04:21 zlefin wrote:
Danglars -> how much do you wish to spend on middle east projects, for the military and nation-building expenses? (either in total, or as an annual expenditure)
War with Iran sounds awfully expensive to me.
not clear what oyu mean by this:
"The debates in this enlightened western Republic reflect an unwillingness to engage in it to defend its own interests and those of its allies. "
from what I see it's mostly just a disagreement with you about balancing the various interests. War is expensive, and like past world wars, not budgetable. It depends how committed Iran is to it's own destruction in the face of a future strong nation bent on preserving it's trading partners and regional stability. On principle, the nation's military is one of the few appropriate uses of taxed revenue at a federal level and ought to be expensive as total expenditure, which it's not. You quoted the a line present in a paragraph referencing xDaunt's double foray into what it would take to defeat ISIS. Do you recall? The response had a lot of shock and horror. Reread the context of the line and that messy business of continuation of diplomacy by other means. war is always budgetable. And it's always worth considering the cost; ww2, sure given how dangerous they were. Iran, seems a bit more assessable. It'd probably be $3 trillion I'd reckon, based on the Iraq and Afghan costs. though it could be a fair bit higher or lower based on what your war goals are. I read the entire paragraph, and I'm still not sure what you meant by the statement. the debates seem fairly complete to me, and having considered all the options How much money would you budget for world war 2, zooming back to the day after pearl harbor? I think continuing this line of reasoning enters into absurd territory. I can only repeat that it depends on Iran's commitment to its own destruction in upholding it's projection of fundamentalist and militaristic power.
If you can't understand that statement in the context in which it was given, and in context of the "shock and horror" response to xDaunt on defeating ISIS, then you'll have to ask another to explain it since I'm so incapable.
On August 21 2016 04:46 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 03:56 Danglars wrote:
Bush did badly to attempt to erect a democratic state with no existing civil society. Obama did worse to withdraw forces and leave the Taliban and ISIS to reassert control, not to mention original policy towards Syria, Libya, and Russia, and America's declining relations with much of the world's Western nations. The next president should work to undo the mistakes both presidents made and I'm unsure either is equipped. I'm not even gonna touch on how exactly having to deal with the consequences of an issue is worse than creating the issue, or how staying in Iraq would have been a solution rather than a temporary suppression of symptoms until the inevitable leave whether 5 years ago or 50 years from now. Instead let's do some basic self reflection. Let's imagine an alternate reality where the US still controls most of Iraq in 2016, Obama refused to withdraw the troops despite popular demand and vetoes any Congress bills pushing for withdrawal. ISIS still exists but they never became the global scarecrow they are over here, there are only some sporadic flareups in Iraq, Syria is relatively fine and still ruled by Assad. Does the Danglars of that reality shit on that version of Obama for undemocratically spending his tax money and a a bunch of American lives to control a place on the other side of the world where not much has happend for years? Or does he predict that leaving might have more than just a local negative effect, put aside what party Obama is from, and praise him for doing what's right (according to current Danglars) in the face of adversity?
"I'm not even going to touch" ... on how many lives and monetary cost Iraq would incur with no huge insurgency, nobody even having heard of ISIS, and a stable but corrupt Syria. Undemocratically is no use here, I presume Congress was too feckless to override a veto in this scenario, which is sincerely republican (small-r constitutional republicanism). I'd praise any president that has enough foresight to keep a peacekeeping force in an area known for failed states wars and revolutions. If hypothetically the American people pressure representatives to override a president committed to middle eastern stability, defund the war or whatnot, then it's on our heads and not our leaders. In a certain aspect here today, the citizen voters that demanded an immediate withdrawal of everything immediately from Iraq and Afganistan can be criticized. For public opinion on conflict as a topic itself, it must be included that interminable and poorly expressed goals with heavy rules-of-engagement-style constraints are a big deal in war weariness ... Americans have supported won conflicts in the past.
|
the outcome of ww2 is FAR less certain than war with Iran would be. war with Iran can easily be estimated quite well cost-wise.
and it's certainly worth asking the question how much are you willing to spend, in lives and money, for victory?
How much would you spend?
Iran's commitment to its own destruction, in a war in which it would be the defender, is an odd choice of phrase. Most people try to protect themselves from being invaded and overrun.
|
On August 21 2016 05:09 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> are you aware of the reason why increased sanctions vs Iran were not a viable option? (if yes, that's fine, just wanted to be sure)
I'm aware "X is not a viable option" is the modern translation of "I disagree with your approach in no small way" in politics. I do admit that everyone does not yet agree with me and some may never.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.salon.com/2016/08/pew-study.png)
