There's no evidence he doesn't support those things.
If anything there is evidence he does because he said it, supported the policy, directed subordinates to execute it, and then signed it into law in most cases.
Its a more expansive issue when you see it economically and see that we're making the same mistake across several different problems.
University education costs are going up and up. House prices are going up and up. And Healthcare costs are going up and up.
They are all being very heavily subsidized by the government and being supplied by private interests.
They're all examples of "demand side" subsidy. Where you give people money to buy something. This is known to increase costs. Its basic supply and demand.
If you increase demand by dumping money on the market you reduce the value of the money and increase the value of the supplied good. You also tend to increase use of the supplied good. The hope is that the supplied goods are produced in greater number at some point which will lower prices. But prices will not lower below the rate of subsidy. If the government offers X dollars for subsidy then the price will NOT go below that number and will typically = government subsidy PLUS private financing PLUS whatever money you have in your pocket right now.
To make matters worse, the government has responded to price increases by increasing rates of subsidization which has lead to a feed back loop with the market. Every time the subsidy goes up the price goes up which causes the subsidy to go up which causes the price to go up.
This has made it very hard for people to afford these goods without government subsidy.
People used to pay for college by working a part time job that would pay their living expenses AND their college fees.
The solution is either full socialization which I don't support for a series of reasons or a gradual reduction in DEMAND SIDE subsidy followed by a shift to SUPPLY side subsidy.
This is what... mostly socialists got mad at Reagan for back in the day. Voodoo economics. Its not complicated and the wisdom of it has become increasingly evident. What you do is build hospitals, build medical schools, build pharma factories... increase supply. Directly. And that lowers COST because the amount on the market relative to demand will increase thus lowering the bargaining power of the supplier because the market will be flooded with competition.
You can do that with universities, housing, and healthcare.
And whether people want single payer or not, we can at least acknowledge that demand side subsidies are just increasing costs and fucking the system up.
My point was about tribalism in and of itself as regards Trump and I didn't cite a specific time frame. Your insistence that it be time frame X is not my argument but an attempt to strawman my position. That video still showed the tribalism.
What is more, I provided many videos, most of which were well after your time frame requirement showing the same thing. So... clearly the time frame argument is totally irrelevant here not only because it wasn't my point but because there is clearly no difference in results before or after.
As to the videos not supporting my claim, they showed people supporting a claim because they thought Hillary or Bernie said it or opposing a policy because Trump said it. And then it showed them being very surprised when it was revealed that Trump said it or Obama said it or whatever. The point was to show the tribalism.
You're just validating the whole horse lead to water saying here. I can't get you to agree to something if you're just going to be mulish. All you're doing is contradicting. You're not even rebutting the positions with coherent and complete arguments.
As to moving goal posts... Again, I've asked this before... which goal post did I move? As to holding other people to different standards... First, no I didn't... and you apparently don't know what the statement "moving goal posts" means. You clearly intend to accuse me of hypocrisy which is not moving goal posts.
For your information... so you don't sound like an idiot in the future, moving goal posts is when someone says "X is true because fact Y" and then when fact Y becomes invalidated the argument is shifted to "X is true because fact Z"... This often takes the form of increasing standards of evidence suddenly or changing win or loss conditions suddenly to avoid losing an argument.
I didn't do that. I'm going to cite the wikipedia for these things because your ignorance of these terms is pathetic and you should really work on some self improvement here.
So now we've gotten to the root of the misunderstanding. You don't know what these terms mean. I thought you did which confused me as to what you meant.
Read up, think about what you want to say, maybe read over what I've said again because I don't think you actually read anything I had to say very clearly... and then try again.
If you don't do this, then you're just going to embarrass yourself. This is not an insult. Everyone has things of which they are ignorant. Have a little humility and go over your position again. I'm happy to read it with an open mind just like I did the first time.
If you don't do this... you're just doubling down on an error which would show a lack of intellectual integrity and more than a touch of out of control egoism. Either way, best of luck.
As to standard practice, it wasn't. You can read into it if you want. The entire thing was panned by experts across the field.
Look, you love your football team... Ra ra sis boom bah... But it isn't credible.
If you dug into Clinton half as hard as you dug into Trump you'd find at least as much.
The Russia story is bullshit. You know it is bullshit. They've found zero evidence of collusion. Its a fishing expedition where by being very anal about some rules they've tricked one guy into breaking the a law that no one cares about in that context and caught another guy breaking a financing rule that is being ignored by most of Washington.
Just don't get married to any solution until its been codified by the legislature. The authority of it all absent that is "well the executive wants to do it"... which remains law until the executive changes its mind.
Actually the Clintons were given blanket immunity by the FBI... I this was all documented. You're going ask for evidence... I'll cite a mainstream source like CNN or something... don't waste my time with that.
You want to pretend there is something there, so be it... There are people that pretend they have force powers or larp as vampires. If you have something then take them to court. Thus far we have some dodgy money with some fund raisers which is pretty typical of all the campaigns and Flynn idiotically discovering how to commit a crime when he didn't do anything wrong.
Its all a joke. But naturally it has to be a big evil Russian conspiracy because absent that narrative the Democrats would have to admit they lost an election which is clearly impossible because they were anointed by the Gods to rule time and space.
The arrogance and ego on display in this thing has been breathtaking.
And yes, I know... you believe in your one true god. That's super. Take it to court or join the likes of Ken Ham in the choir pushing creationism.
... is that anything done through it can be undone through it.
I have a phone and a pen? Remember?
Well, that has limitations and the first of those is that the next guy that comes along with a phone and a pen can reverse it.
No substitute for going through the proper legislative process.
Here people will say "its slow"... its faster than the alternatives because the alternatives won't work. The way that takes a long time but works when compared against the way that is fast and fails... Do it the right way.
Doesn't matter as the political opinions were created before the election since naturally people did "vote" and those "votes" were based on some notion of who they wanted to be president.
Look, I asked you to try it yourself. Read off an idea, say it is bernie or hillary and see what happens.
I made a statement that we've all seen in operation here. That tribalism plays a very powerful role in how people see things and that many people that think they're issues based are not actually.
We know this. It a well understood principle in politics and psychology. And ironically if we weren't talking about your sacred cow you'd probably admit it without a fuss. But since we're on your sacred cow you'll deny evolution and whether the world is round if it will just save your personal jesus.
Run the experiment and maybe you'll break through your own personal cognitive dissonance.
If we get a doctor and your choices are some very nice person that doesn't know what they're doing or Dr House... as in a very qualified doctor who is an asshole... you're going to go with the asshole because your hurt fee fees are worth less to you then your life.
And that's a thing with business as well.
How many employees will work for a boss or a company they don't like if the money is good?
Lots will.
So if employees will work for a boss they don't like to get paid then a boss may well accept a difficult employee if they're good at their job.
And if the employer only wants rainbows and unicorns then that probably has more to do with the job market being in their favor than anything.
Long story short, first criteria is competence in the field.
Second criteria is basic work ethics...
Being a "good communicator" is going to find its way onto a list somewhere but if you had to drop something from the list you could live without it. You can't drop competence or basic work ethics. You lose the competence and they simply can't do the work point blank. If you drop work ethics then they're not going to do the work whether or not they can.
Eh... not really. We could probably find just as much if we looked into the clintons.
I mean, one of the "crimes" was that Flynn said he didn't talk to a Russian diplomat AFTER Trump was elected when he had talked to a Russian diplomat. Had he said he did do it... there would have been no legal consequences.
This is why most lawyers will tell you to respond "I don't recall" to every question when something like this happens. Because there are a million laws and they're frequently not applied reasonably.
Do you know for example that if you tell a police officer something it can be used AGAINST you in court but not FOR you? See, its evidence if against you but merely heresay if for you.
Which is why you shouldn't talk to the police most of the time if you think there is a possibility of being accused of anything.
What you'd need to sustain your position on Trump is a pattern that ultimately implicates Trump himself or at the very least his campaign. Which you don't have. You have some people getting flustered when harassed by the FBI and you have some dodgy money which at worst will burn one guy... that isn't trump.
Am I missing anything here? If you turned that same focus to Hillary I'm sure you'd find something fishy in the Clinton Foundation or the Uranium One deal or something... To say nothing of the suspicious body count in people that were inconvenient to the Clintons.
By the same standard you're using here... Bernie would probably run into problems as well. You've got that College that basically went bankrupt under his wife's watch. Who knows.
Believe what you want but at the end of the day, you're going to have to have something substantial unless you want to just become the left wing version of Alex Jones.
You can go out and try it yourself. Get a few quotes, go to your buddies, tell them it comes from X democrat, and then ask if they agree with the position.
Do it for science.
And here you're going to maybe ask for a series of peer reviewed studies or something... be skeptical... but actually test it yourself. Seriously.
Do it. Don't just be skeptical of me... be skeptical of yourself here. Try it out.
Naturally there is tribalism all over the place. We're human beings so that's just part of the landscape.
But the point is why are people choosing X vs Y? Is it issues or tribalism?
Because again, if you cite most Trump policies to democrats as if they were democrat ideas, the ideas and programs are generally popular with democrats.
Thus opposition is apparently almost entirely tribalism. If instead you cited Hillary ideas at Republicans and they liked them if told they were trump ideas, then I'd also conclude that opposition to Hillary is tribalism.
Can you do that? Because there are many examples of Trump ideas getting supported by democrats when they think they're hillary or bernie ideas.
So were the polls that showed Trump would win the election in the first place. I'm not saying the polls I'm citing are right or wrong or yours are right or wrong... but that you have a lot of polls that agree with each other doesn't mean they're right.
Let us just leave it at... you are dubious of those results... very well... naturally subsequent elections will clarify the reality of one of these views over time. Till then.
Opposition to Trump is nearly entirely tribalism. On the issues, we agree. This immigration stuff in particular is something that most Americans of both parties agree upon. Lots of people from BOTH parties are manipulated by powerful interests that have a different agenda.
Most Democrats and Republicans don't want the current high levels of immigration with the seemingly lax control and standards. However, large portions of the Republicans and Democrat congress do want it.
Republican politicians seem to want it because powerful business interests like depressing US wages to improve profit margins. Democrat politicians want it because they believe that once citizens unskilled third world labor will become supporters of heavy welfare policies which will make them reliable voters for the Democratic party. In neither case does this benefit the majority of voters. It is supported by these people largely because they've sold their own voters out to obtain other goals indifferent to the interests of voters.
This is why the tribalism is toxic. Be an issues voter that chooses his issues based on personally constructed reasons rather than simply adopting projected justifications. We can't be a free people if our citizenry slavishly clap along to anything.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no evidence he doesn't support those things.
If anything there is evidence he does because he said it, supported the policy, directed subordinates to execute it, and then signed it into law in most cases.
So... try again.
Its a more expansive issue when you see it economically and see that we're making the same mistake across several different problems.
University education costs are going up and up.
House prices are going up and up.
And Healthcare costs are going up and up.
They are all being very heavily subsidized by the government and being supplied by private interests.
They're all examples of "demand side" subsidy. Where you give people money to buy something. This is known to increase costs. Its basic supply and demand.
If you increase demand by dumping money on the market you reduce the value of the money and increase the value of the supplied good. You also tend to increase use of the supplied good. The hope is that the supplied goods are produced in greater number at some point which will lower prices. But prices will not lower below the rate of subsidy. If the government offers X dollars for subsidy then the price will NOT go below that number and will typically = government subsidy PLUS private financing PLUS whatever money you have in your pocket right now.
To make matters worse, the government has responded to price increases by increasing rates of subsidization which has lead to a feed back loop with the market. Every time the subsidy goes up the price goes up which causes the subsidy to go up which causes the price to go up.
This has made it very hard for people to afford these goods without government subsidy.
People used to pay for college by working a part time job that would pay their living expenses AND their college fees.
The solution is either full socialization which I don't support for a series of reasons or a gradual reduction in DEMAND SIDE subsidy followed by a shift to SUPPLY side subsidy.
This is what... mostly socialists got mad at Reagan for back in the day. Voodoo economics. Its not complicated and the wisdom of it has become increasingly evident. What you do is build hospitals, build medical schools, build pharma factories... increase supply. Directly. And that lowers COST because the amount on the market relative to demand will increase thus lowering the bargaining power of the supplier because the market will be flooded with competition.
You can do that with universities, housing, and healthcare.
And whether people want single payer or not, we can at least acknowledge that demand side subsidies are just increasing costs and fucking the system up.
Mixture of false and irrelevant.
My point was about tribalism in and of itself as regards Trump and I didn't cite a specific time frame. Your insistence that it be time frame X is not my argument but an attempt to strawman my position. That video still showed the tribalism.
What is more, I provided many videos, most of which were well after your time frame requirement showing the same thing. So... clearly the time frame argument is totally irrelevant here not only because it wasn't my point but because there is clearly no difference in results before or after.
As to the videos not supporting my claim, they showed people supporting a claim because they thought Hillary or Bernie said it or opposing a policy because Trump said it. And then it showed them being very surprised when it was revealed that Trump said it or Obama said it or whatever. The point was to show the tribalism.
You're just validating the whole horse lead to water saying here. I can't get you to agree to something if you're just going to be mulish. All you're doing is contradicting. You're not even rebutting the positions with coherent and complete arguments.
As to moving goal posts... Again, I've asked this before... which goal post did I move? As to holding other people to different standards... First, no I didn't... and you apparently don't know what the statement "moving goal posts" means. You clearly intend to accuse me of hypocrisy which is not moving goal posts.
For your information... so you don't sound like an idiot in the future, moving goal posts is when someone says "X is true because fact Y" and then when fact Y becomes invalidated the argument is shifted to "X is true because fact Z"... This often takes the form of increasing standards of evidence suddenly or changing win or loss conditions suddenly to avoid losing an argument.
I didn't do that. I'm going to cite the wikipedia for these things because your ignorance of these terms is pathetic and you should really work on some self improvement here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So now we've gotten to the root of the misunderstanding. You don't know what these terms mean. I thought you did which confused me as to what you meant.
Read up, think about what you want to say, maybe read over what I've said again because I don't think you actually read anything I had to say very clearly... and then try again.
If you don't do this, then you're just going to embarrass yourself. This is not an insult. Everyone has things of which they are ignorant. Have a little humility and go over your position again. I'm happy to read it with an open mind just like I did the first time.
If you don't do this... you're just doubling down on an error which would show a lack of intellectual integrity and more than a touch of out of control egoism. Either way, best of luck.
You are appreciated.
You're bad at the internet:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
It was granted... not merely asked for...
As to standard practice, it wasn't. You can read into it if you want. The entire thing was panned by experts across the field.
Look, you love your football team... Ra ra sis boom bah... But it isn't credible.
If you dug into Clinton half as hard as you dug into Trump you'd find at least as much.
The Russia story is bullshit. You know it is bullshit. They've found zero evidence of collusion. Its a fishing expedition where by being very anal about some rules they've tricked one guy into breaking the a law that no one cares about in that context and caught another guy breaking a financing rule that is being ignored by most of Washington.
Its a joke.
Prove me wrong and show the collusion.
In the mean time, enjoy this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
in regards to the ACA... I think a lot of people are using a series of different unrelated problems to justify a preconceived solution.
The entire thing has been dishonest from the start.
And as the means are the ends, the ends are misinformation and deceit.
I actually cited things.
I also showed I was happy to go through my argument and counter another person's argument.
So that's the bare minimum standard you'd have to meet if you were meeting the same I held myself to.
You're not meeting that standard.
An accusation was made that I was moving goal posts.
I then asked when asked how.
You're saying that I can't ask how I am moving goal posts.
By the standard I have held myself to in this discussion, you would have to actually answer that question.
Because you're not, I'm going to look at what YOUR standard is... that standard appears to be "say stupid shit and then refuse to back it up."
Okay, so using YOUR standard:
You are a fish.
*eats fish is happy*
The end.
Just don't get married to any solution until its been codified by the legislature. The authority of it all absent that is "well the executive wants to do it"... which remains law until the executive changes its mind.
Actually the Clintons were given blanket immunity by the FBI... I this was all documented. You're going ask for evidence... I'll cite a mainstream source like CNN or something... don't waste my time with that.
You want to pretend there is something there, so be it... There are people that pretend they have force powers or larp as vampires. If you have something then take them to court. Thus far we have some dodgy money with some fund raisers which is pretty typical of all the campaigns and Flynn idiotically discovering how to commit a crime when he didn't do anything wrong.
Its all a joke. But naturally it has to be a big evil Russian conspiracy because absent that narrative the Democrats would have to admit they lost an election which is clearly impossible because they were anointed by the Gods to rule time and space.
The arrogance and ego on display in this thing has been breathtaking.
And yes, I know... you believe in your one true god. That's super. Take it to court or join the likes of Ken Ham in the choir pushing creationism.
Which goal post did I move or are you just repeating things?
Cite the goal post moved.
Of course, which is why it should be done through congress.
We agree.
... is that anything done through it can be undone through it.
I have a phone and a pen? Remember?
Well, that has limitations and the first of those is that the next guy that comes along with a phone and a pen can reverse it.
No substitute for going through the proper legislative process.
Here people will say "its slow"... its faster than the alternatives because the alternatives won't work. The way that takes a long time but works when compared against the way that is fast and fails... Do it the right way.
Get the votes and pass your law.
Also since you care about when it was taken even though in either case it would speak to my point...
here is one that is after the SOTU address:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You're denying the Sun here.
Doesn't matter as the political opinions were created before the election since naturally people did "vote" and those "votes" were based on some notion of who they wanted to be president.
and for fun:
http://harvardharrispoll.com/w...
Nope.
http://harvardharrispoll.com/w...
Look, I asked you to try it yourself. Read off an idea, say it is bernie or hillary and see what happens.
I made a statement that we've all seen in operation here. That tribalism plays a very powerful role in how people see things and that many people that think they're issues based are not actually.
We know this. It a well understood principle in politics and psychology. And ironically if we weren't talking about your sacred cow you'd probably admit it without a fuss. But since we're on your sacred cow you'll deny evolution and whether the world is round if it will just save your personal jesus.
Run the experiment and maybe you'll break through your own personal cognitive dissonance.
also fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Naturally you have to be able to do the work.
If we get a doctor and your choices are some very nice person that doesn't know what they're doing or Dr House... as in a very qualified doctor who is an asshole... you're going to go with the asshole because your hurt fee fees are worth less to you then your life.
And that's a thing with business as well.
How many employees will work for a boss or a company they don't like if the money is good?
Lots will.
So if employees will work for a boss they don't like to get paid then a boss may well accept a difficult employee if they're good at their job.
And if the employer only wants rainbows and unicorns then that probably has more to do with the job market being in their favor than anything.
Long story short, first criteria is competence in the field.
Second criteria is basic work ethics...
Being a "good communicator" is going to find its way onto a list somewhere but if you had to drop something from the list you could live without it. You can't drop competence or basic work ethics. You lose the competence and they simply can't do the work point blank. If you drop work ethics then they're not going to do the work whether or not they can.
Eh... not really. We could probably find just as much if we looked into the clintons.
I mean, one of the "crimes" was that Flynn said he didn't talk to a Russian diplomat AFTER Trump was elected when he had talked to a Russian diplomat. Had he said he did do it... there would have been no legal consequences.
This is why most lawyers will tell you to respond "I don't recall" to every question when something like this happens. Because there are a million laws and they're frequently not applied reasonably.
Do you know for example that if you tell a police officer something it can be used AGAINST you in court but not FOR you? See, its evidence if against you but merely heresay if for you.
Which is why you shouldn't talk to the police most of the time if you think there is a possibility of being accused of anything.
What you'd need to sustain your position on Trump is a pattern that ultimately implicates Trump himself or at the very least his campaign. Which you don't have. You have some people getting flustered when harassed by the FBI and you have some dodgy money which at worst will burn one guy... that isn't trump.
Am I missing anything here? If you turned that same focus to Hillary I'm sure you'd find something fishy in the Clinton Foundation or the Uranium One deal or something... To say nothing of the suspicious body count in people that were inconvenient to the Clintons.
By the same standard you're using here... Bernie would probably run into problems as well. You've got that College that basically went bankrupt under his wife's watch. Who knows.
Believe what you want but at the end of the day, you're going to have to have something substantial unless you want to just become the left wing version of Alex Jones.
Please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You can go out and try it yourself. Get a few quotes, go to your buddies, tell them it comes from X democrat, and then ask if they agree with the position.
Do it for science.
And here you're going to maybe ask for a series of peer reviewed studies or something... be skeptical... but actually test it yourself. Seriously.
Do it. Don't just be skeptical of me... be skeptical of yourself here. Try it out.
Naturally there is tribalism all over the place. We're human beings so that's just part of the landscape.
But the point is why are people choosing X vs Y? Is it issues or tribalism?
Because again, if you cite most Trump policies to democrats as if they were democrat ideas, the ideas and programs are generally popular with democrats.
Thus opposition is apparently almost entirely tribalism. If instead you cited Hillary ideas at Republicans and they liked them if told they were trump ideas, then I'd also conclude that opposition to Hillary is tribalism.
Can you do that? Because there are many examples of Trump ideas getting supported by democrats when they think they're hillary or bernie ideas.
I look forward to examples. *Smiley Face*
So were the polls that showed Trump would win the election in the first place. I'm not saying the polls I'm citing are right or wrong or yours are right or wrong... but that you have a lot of polls that agree with each other doesn't mean they're right.
Let us just leave it at... you are dubious of those results... very well... naturally subsequent elections will clarify the reality of one of these views over time. Till then.
Exactly.
Opposition to Trump is nearly entirely tribalism. On the issues, we agree. This immigration stuff in particular is something that most Americans of both parties agree upon. Lots of people from BOTH parties are manipulated by powerful interests that have a different agenda.
Most Democrats and Republicans don't want the current high levels of immigration with the seemingly lax control and standards. However, large portions of the Republicans and Democrat congress do want it.
Republican politicians seem to want it because powerful business interests like depressing US wages to improve profit margins. Democrat politicians want it because they believe that once citizens unskilled third world labor will become supporters of heavy welfare policies which will make them reliable voters for the Democratic party. In neither case does this benefit the majority of voters. It is supported by these people largely because they've sold their own voters out to obtain other goals indifferent to the interests of voters.
This is why the tribalism is toxic. Be an issues voter that chooses his issues based on personally constructed reasons rather than simply adopting projected justifications. We can't be a free people if our citizenry slavishly clap along to anything.
I'm noting the absence of evidence.
What you're saying is INVESTIGATION = GUILT.
By this logic everyone ever investigated for anything was guilty of whatever they were investigated for...
Thus far we have another special council fishing expedition.
Again, happy to be proven wrong... show the evidence and prove it.
Cite some evidence of that. I mean, anyone can say something. I could say that you are personally made entirely out of cheese.
Is that true? Are you made of cheese? Evidence or you set a standard of evidence not being required. At which point... God exists...
thank you for the correction