Except 97% said that they would vote for him AGAIN, that means there is 10% of republicans that think he is doing bad, but whatevs, atleast he is a republican.
That makes no sense what so ever. Firstly you do not have to completely control the earth. In addition the parts we are worried about are the man made parts of it.
Why would I go to right wing echo champers like Brietbart and gab and reddit, where they routinely ignore evidence?
Lets look at your post for example, it shows you know nothing of how the country works.
1) Obama was never Senate majority leader, not was he ever DNC chair, so your statement "but the then-leader of the Democratic party (senator Obama) chose not to prosecute because "it would divide the nation"." makes absolutely ZERO sense 2) In order for the senate to actual prosecute the house must FIRST vote on articles of impeachment.
Facts, not your friend
But lets look at your numbers. Republicans are always the "party over country" party, this is known, they would rather double down then admit mistakes, for example, it peaks at 87%, far short of the 96% that would vote for him again, that shows that even among the group who voted for him many are not happy with him.
In your echo chamber he is doing a great job, but when conservative sites start calling for people to pull out of the US, and the people who predicted his win also predict his impeachment you know you may be on the wrong side.
That is much more difficult then it used to be. Back when everything was spread out doing that could really hurt the minority district, but now when concentration in the bigger areas that becomes more difficult. Possible, but still difficult.
American Stinker is one of the fakest news sites out there, far worse than CNN. against my better judgement I clicked on that one, and it was basically just a bunch of accusations, no actual evidence that I could see. In fact one of the "bad" things the epa did is pay people to try and peer review the work, OH GAWD the horror.
Yes, you did. When you pretended, that the opponents of the UBI claim, beneficiaries of the program will all simply "stop working". Though nobody made such a claim, you pretended somebody did — and attacked it. That was a strawman. By definition [logicallyfallacious.com].
So no one claimed people would stop working with UBI? Maybe want to read the parent? here let me quote it..
We expect people to work here if they are able, and contribute to the country. People that don't work are generally looked down upon. If you think trying to implement universal health care is a cluster, just try UBI. Conservatives need people working and generating revenue so they can skim their % from the top to support their lifestyle.
So please tell me again how no one was making that argument
"Most" and "all" are interchangeable synonyms in this context. You know it, I know it, any reasonable reader of this exchange knows it. But the point stands — whether all or simply most individuals will work less, the overall work done by people will be less.
I thought we were arguing logically? If so most if the opposite of all. In addition there is no evidence that even MOST indiviuals work less in the trials, let alone in general. We know that OVER ALL the number of hours dropped slightly, so please stop with the over generalizations.
Ahh, but may be some people would work more? Nope, if there was such an effect to report, TFA — hugely sympathetic to the idea of UBI — would've put it into title.
huh? This makes no sense in the context. Unless you make wile assumptions that massive amounts of people just completely stopped working then you wouldnt need people who worked more to get the small losses that were reported in ONE study.
But what should I expect from someone who things that during Obama all protesting was racist, not the manner, or things, you were protesting.
Most UBI pilots do not work that way, either from the start or after a a certain amount, you lose some of your benefits per dollar you make. It is designed to encentivize work
Actually it does... Studies have shown that cutting taxes on the poor and increasing them on the rich generates economic growth, where as if you cut it on the rich and raise it on the poor it constricts the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Except 97% said that they would vote for him AGAIN, that means there is 10% of republicans that think he is doing bad, but whatevs, atleast he is a republican.
You mean party over country? Actually while it may apply SOME to dems, much less so, we will throw a joker under the bus.
You realize that China is not a completely communist country, and has not been for a while.
you are the one making stuff up, you dont have to have complete control over the earth to prevent man made climate change.
Yes because ensuring that the planet is habitable past our lifetime is pure insanity....
That makes no sense what so ever. Firstly you do not have to completely control the earth. In addition the parts we are worried about are the man made parts of it.
You seem to be debating the wrong person, I am not the one claiming that.
It should be noted that the 40% approval ratings are of all voters, of his voters it goes between 81 and 87%
Why would I go to right wing echo champers like Brietbart and gab and reddit, where they routinely ignore evidence?
Lets look at your post for example, it shows you know nothing of how the country works.
1) Obama was never Senate majority leader, not was he ever DNC chair, so your statement "but the then-leader of the Democratic party (senator Obama) chose not to prosecute because "it would divide the nation"." makes absolutely ZERO sense
2) In order for the senate to actual prosecute the house must FIRST vote on articles of impeachment.
Facts, not your friend
But lets look at your numbers. Republicans are always the "party over country" party, this is known, they would rather double down then admit mistakes, for example, it peaks at 87%, far short of the 96% that would vote for him again, that shows that even among the group who voted for him many are not happy with him.
No, many independents believe in climate change, shoot even many conservatives are starting to believe it.
In your echo chamber he is doing a great job, but when conservative sites start calling for people to pull out of the US, and the people who predicted his win also predict his impeachment you know you may be on the wrong side.
That is much more difficult then it used to be. Back when everything was spread out doing that could really hurt the minority district, but now when concentration in the bigger areas that becomes more difficult. Possible, but still difficult.
Mr Nixon is that you?
Inventors: Martisauskas; Steven J. (San Francisco, CA)
Applicant:
Name City State Country Type
Apple Inc.
Cupertino
CA
US
Assignee: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA)
Family ID: 1000002586884
Appl. No.: 14/445,849
Filed: July 29, 2014
Less than 3 years ago.
While some people starve? The poor generally pay no taxes, therefore reducing taxes in no way helps them.
Contractors for the EPA dropped the ball.... Accidents happen, the EPA owned it and worked on fixing it. Flint on the other hand...
The removal was an accident...
You have fellow PHDs on the board, you dont invite the patients to review potential brain surgens, but that is what you are talking about.
The EPAs job is not to balance the cost of regulations with the benefits, that is congress' job, the EPA has one job, and it is in its name.
American Stinker is one of the fakest news sites out there, far worse than CNN. against my better judgement I clicked on that one, and it was basically just a bunch of accusations, no actual evidence that I could see. In fact one of the "bad" things the epa did is pay people to try and peer review the work, OH GAWD the horror.
Yes, you did. When you pretended, that the opponents of the UBI claim, beneficiaries of the program will all simply "stop working". Though nobody made such a claim, you pretended somebody did — and attacked it. That was a strawman. By definition [logicallyfallacious.com].
So no one claimed people would stop working with UBI? Maybe want to read the parent? here let me quote it..
We expect people to work here if they are able, and contribute to the country. People that don't work are generally looked down upon. If you think trying to implement universal health care is a cluster, just try UBI. Conservatives need people working and generating revenue so they can skim their % from the top to support their lifestyle.
So please tell me again how no one was making that argument
"Most" and "all" are interchangeable synonyms in this context. You know it, I know it, any reasonable reader of this exchange knows it. But the point stands — whether all or simply most individuals will work less, the overall work done by people will be less.
I thought we were arguing logically? If so most if the opposite of all. In addition there is no evidence that even MOST indiviuals work less in the trials, let alone in general. We know that OVER ALL the number of hours dropped slightly, so please stop with the over generalizations.
Ahh, but may be some people would work more? Nope, if there was such an effect to report, TFA — hugely sympathetic to the idea of UBI — would've put it into title.
huh? This makes no sense in the context. Unless you make wile assumptions that massive amounts of people just completely stopped working then you wouldnt need people who worked more to get the small losses that were reported in ONE study.
But what should I expect from someone who things that during Obama all protesting was racist, not the manner, or things, you were protesting.
A) it has been tested and so far has always worked
B) I can guaranteed people desire things, and as long as that is the case they will keep working.
That is because they still had to work full time jobs AND volunteer... It is not about lazy, it is about unreasonable requirements in the system.
Most UBI pilots do not work that way, either from the start or after a a certain amount, you lose some of your benefits per dollar you make. It is designed to encentivize work
I created no strawmen, every quote I used was your statements entirely...
Your statement was still NOT proved..
Trials during the 1970s in Canada and the US found people worked slightly less
is VASTLY differnt from
It is not an "all or nothing". The fact acknowledged by TFA itself is that people receiving assistance begin working less than they used to.
A) it was 1 study
B) not all people were shown to reduce their work.
Actually it does... Studies have shown that cutting taxes on the poor and increasing them on the rich generates economic growth, where as if you cut it on the rich and raise it on the poor it constricts the economy.