Political comments suck. > 90% of them are just rehashed talking points and they quickly devolve into echo chambers for the dominant voting bloc. I'd much rather see an aggregator using something like an argument map.
Reddit and Hacker News both solve the problem of "how do you host a site to allow for political discussion?"
To get good debate, you have to curate a social community by effective moderation. You see it on reddit all the time -- some communities are utter trash, and some are much better. It's a social problem, not a technological one.
The hitch: making good falsifiable or verifiable predictions is tough and time-consuming. Evaluating and judging them requires even more moderation.
And let's face it: most online comments are not about advancing the public discourse. They're about getting a quick dopamine hit.
That is to say, getting multiple dopamine hits as you type a long comment and imagine people on the internet being impressed by a comment you wouldn't be motivated enough to journal about.
If you have a high rate of success predicting outcomes, it's likely you have a good grasp on events in that broad category, and your comments are likely more valuable insights on-average.
Maybe building that would be impossible because the bias of curators would fill it with strawmen etc.
Plato: The Republic
Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics; and Politics
Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan John Locke: Two Treatises of Government
Rousseau: The Social Contract
Montesquieu: The Spirit of the Laws De Toqueville: Democracy in America
Karl Marx: The Communist Manifesto; and Das Kapital.
JS Mill: On Liberty (the classic Utilitarian Enlightenment work)
John Rawls: A Theory of Justice (A hugely important work on rights and principles of political decisionmaking)
Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia (a right-wing / libertarian oriented response to Rawls)
Michael Sandel: Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (critique of liberalism and introducing communitarianism)