Let's just go with the "70% want healthcare for everyone." What they *want* and *have been sold* is the fictitious idea of "free healthcare." What they will get is a national ID card which, if they're lucky, will result in mediocre healthcare the government wishes to ration out. What they likely wouldn't want, if they were well informed rather than propagandized by Leftists, is a completely crashed economy, politicized health issues, and a nanny state to control the vices they currently enjoy.
"Solved"? Um, thanks, but as an American, I don't rely on my government to run my entire life. That's how my country was designed. Some here achieve success, and some fail, but-- thankfully-- we're not a gray goo of sub-mediocre egalitarianism. And luckily, there are many opportunities to not fail.
To summarize, you believe that poor people are [too dumb/unable to figure out how/unable to take a day off] to get IDs. It's such a dumb argument to make, but so oft-repeated, that those making it don't even think about what it means.
To champion the straw man of "convenience" over "legitimate elections" is quite disturbing; also, lots of poor people have IDs already, because just about everything significant requires ID such as renting an apartment, driving, buying alcohol, and getting a job.
The whole voter ID issue has been politicized and racialized, to the detriment of election legitimacy. See Project Veritas, who are currently exposing election fraud.
>Health care You're missing the point. The "feel good" thing of single payer healthcare is that "everyone is covered" and not "everyone gets great healthcare." There is a big difference between carrying a national healthcare card and receiving *actual* quality healthcare. And, it is simply not affordable. See Finland (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47496326) for more information about all the stuff wrong with government controlled healthcare.
> Taking care of your poor Show me another place where there is an obesity epidemic among the poor? While perhaps an oversimplification, fat poor people are a pretty good indication that the problems of the US poor are quite different from those in other countries.
> proper democracy The US is a democratic republic. The concept of "pure democracy" (is that what you mean by "proper"?) in modern day seems to championed by those who value winning elections over those who value giving all people a voice in politics, not just coastal progressive l33t cities.
>> Religion teaches some people to feel superior to other people because they believe something stupid. My best guess is that either you do not understand, and never bothered to try to understand, religion, and are pretending to be able to read the minds of religious people.
Or, you have experienced religion and felt superior at one point, then switched to the more contemporary version of feeling superior, which is to proclaim "religion is bad" and "religious people are stupid."
Or, you have an inferiority complex that is triggered by faith you wish you could, but don't, understand.
This is a very good point about religion, and specifically monotheism. It was the belief in a single non-human (or "sky" as the uninformed say) god that dismantled the general principle that leaders of cities/kingdoms/territories themselves were gods. In this manner, civilization was able to derive principles from concepts higher than human power.
In this day and age, it is of the utmost importance for the communist types not only to profess atheism, but also to ridicule theist religion. Faith in a deity rather than a human power structure means there is always a higher calling than the human call to obey would-be communist (or whatever other brand of authoritarian) overlords.
Which of these CV items has anything to do with "competence"? I see "passing the bar" and "teaching" as things she has done. Having no law experience, I can't speak to the competence needed to pass the bar. I can only assume "competent test taker." As a former student, I have had both competent and incompetent teachers; so, regardless of where she has taught, why would I accept her teaching experience as evidence of her competence? In conclusion, why would I attribute "competence" to her ability to lead?
I will say that her Instagram beer video show *incompetence* when it comes to acting as a normal human being.
Let's examine your Trump list, shall we? >> He's taken numerous steps to dismantle environmental protections. Do you mean regulations? Regulations are not directly responsible for anything other than raising the cost of market entry for small businesses, thereby stifling innovation that could lead to technological advances to create renewable low- or no-carbon energy, or technology that can scrub the air of CO2. Regulations may be good guidelines for things, but are also vectors for corruption and foster the domination of corporatism. Also, I have yet to hear a good explanation of why people freak about about the removal of regulations. When regulations are removed, do companies all of a sudden say, "Aha! Now I can once again begin killing all the wildlife and stop filtering the pollution from my smokestacks!"?
>> Heck boosting coal use is explicitly a major part of his platform. Energy independence is important, as are jobs. Championing coal serves both of those needs. These are immediate needs. It certainly makes sense to explore other sources of energy given the finite amount of fossil fuel we have {{cough}}generation 4 nuclear{{cough}}, and the pollution fossil fuel creates {{cough}}generation 4 nuclear{{cough}}, but we have to think beyond small-scale and unreliable stuff like wind {{cough}}generation 4 nuclear{{cough}}.
>>He's appointed numerous climate change denying energy industry cronies to the EPA Please show me someone who believes that the climate is not changing. I stopped believing that there were "climate change deniers" within seconds of daring to look at the "skeptic" side of the climate change issue. Nobody who I have come across denies the science data showing climate changes throughout time.
>>and they've suppressed information What information have they suppressed? Is it the secret information that proves that everyone should be alarmed? Is it the 12-years-and-we're-dead information? Wait, I've heard that one, so that's not suppressed. Is it the 97% agreement thing? Nope, heard that one. Actually, that 97% thing is dubious because they included scientists who wrote papers that were tangentially related to climate alarmist dogma, some of whom have expressed surprise or irritation that they were included in that 97% figure. Is that the suppressed information?
>> and dismissed staff that won't play ball, or just because they're scientists who've pushed research and policies that contradict the pro-coal and CO2-is-good agenda. Politics works this way; when you have the ability to hire and fire as an executive, you get to pick people who support your agenda. I'm curious about the research and policies of which you speak? Is there some sort of shortage of research funding for climate change alarmists who keep inventing ways to blame climate change for every single thing in the world, including racism? On policies-- well, I am still failing to connect the dots on how the government is going to pass any law that is going to reverse this now-irreversible climate change. Or is it still not too late? Or will we go back to using the term "global warming" rather than "climate change"? Will we switch over to "global cooling" again? Perhaps that can write the law up like Mad Libs (no political pun intended, but noted), where they can just fill in the blanks every few years to suit the current trend of political bashing?
Good point about this "youthful" mindset polluting institutional decision making. I kind of wonder, if the government *must* intervene (which, arguably, they shouldn't, but that's my American mindset), why the only tool at their disposal seems to be *banning*? Why can't they do something like offer grants to incentivize inventing a better alternative to these polluting plastics? Or give tax breaks to restaurant chains that use non-plastic stuff? Or give tax breaks to companies who package things with materials comprising less than a pre-defined threshold of plastic?
BTW, I just ate at a Boston Market (fast food chain in the US), and was surprised to see non-plastic utensils. Then, I looked more closely. The metal was actually cloudy from not being cleaned properly, with spots of some type of mystery substance, and kind of rough and sticky. I would have loved having some packaged one-time-use plasticware so I could avoid worrying about my dirty silverware. I would say this (possibility of germ-infested utensils) is likely one of many unintended consequences of moving away from one-time-use plastics.
I'm curious how much illegal immigration affects energy consumption in the US? We're so caught up in how the media spins illegal immigration (and shutting down people who point out the destruction of low-skilled jobs available to impoverished American citizens), I hardly hear anyone talk about the environmental impact of illegal immigrants. Many of the places they come from don't really push "energy consciousness," an American value stemming from its relatively high standards of living.
It's a good notion and, on its face, simple. In fact, it is so simple that there is no reason for legislation supporting the notion to be more than a single page. Single paragraph, even. Unfortunately, legislation and simplicity are incompatible. So, what I'm opposed to is a complicated regulation that is ultimately going to come with a cost that prices small businesses out of the market, stifling innovation. If, however, the scope were only tractors, or the only requirement with such regulation were to provide owners with a technical manual and eliminate regulations preventing companies from specializing in after market parts and repairs, sounds good to me.
Summary: The problem today is not everybody thinks in the superior way that I do. If those who disagree with my worldview would just shut up, there would be no problem.
Does your boss understand every detail about the job s/he expects you to do? The larger the organization, the less likely the bosses actually know how to do the stuff required of their reports. The boss's job is to steer reports in the direction of the organization at large.
I can't speak to the dollars and cost, etc., of space exploration, and I'm willing to bet that you can't either (much less comprehend how to manage a national budget). "Percentages of budget" assume getting the job done has something to do with the constantly changing value of a slice of an imaginary pie which, in your superficial political opinion, should be sliced differently.
In fact, this situation looks like a leader laying down a challenge for engineers to figure out a way to get something significant done within a time and money restraint, a relatively typical scenario for large-scale projects (and, from what I can gather about engineers, something they are good at and actually enjoy). So what's your problem? Pence's faith? Orange man bad? Or is it that the system is oppressing your vastly superior intellect, thus preventing you from saving the world?
The government doing what the government is *supposed* to do is not socialism. The national space program is not socialism. In fact, socialism would be if the government absorbed the companies in question then micromanaged all of the decisions about all the stuff they did and built.
See also trash collection; building infrastructure; the electric grid.
I agree with the "Interesting" mod of this post, not because of any type of new information or insight, but because this is an excellent expression of the new cognitive dissonance blueprint for the anti-Trump crowd. Watch how many versions of this propagandist word thinking you see twisting in the digital wind, filled with spillover from dashed hopes and dreams of the demise of Bad Orange Man. These sentiments are the new (energy efficient) laser pointer you will see others follow passionately.
Reversing or eliminating a regulation has nothing to do with the actual creation of stuff. Therefore, claiming that eliminating a regulation *results* in something (such as higher costs or more pollution) is just pushing an agenda with a lie. The summary suggests this particular regulation was never more widely applied anyway, so how is killing it going to have *any* effect on *anything*? But, if such effects were estimated, did the calculations account for the increased energy independence of the US since Trump took office?
"Critics say"? Are these critics members of "The Natural Resources Defense Council"? The activist organization that profits from exaggerating or otherwise inventing environmental issues to complain about (an organization that nobody ever heard of and is exploiting the "orange man bad" zeitgeist to get their name out there)? *Those* critics?
I often find this particular way of formatting emphasis is attached to superficial babble those who employ it are mindlessly repeating due to the frustration of having only a superficial understanding of points of view they are arguing against. On Twitter, this is often accompanied by hand clap emojis. While telegraphing the intent to convey importance, it is unintentionally comedic.
This oversimplication of the First Amendment is wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Essentially, these social media platforms have transformed into the "public square," and censorship on those platforms is a violation of the First Amendment.
Ha, it's that level of obscurity and pseudo-intellectualism that makes this "men can be women" so stupid. "Oh no, your tiny pea brain can't understand how complicated it is. My post-graduate-educated colleagues and I have invented our own language to describe this phenomenon."
Nobody did "care" about gender in any significant sense until it was politicized, and pseudo-science was invoked to call people stupid science deniers. In short, men cannot be women. You can choose to indulge a person's manifestation of gender dysphoria out of politeness or self-righteousness, but you don't get to impose your fictional terminology to "prove" your position, nor shame others for not wasting time wading through your gobbledygook dictionary.
That's an awesome idea. Some might argue this would be opening the doors to propaganda. I say that's fine. The more we bolster and amplify the current corporate propaganda machine, the less ignorant the populace would be. Fixing Facebook's journalism problem in this manner could ultimately fix the citizens in fly-over states by snuffing out their propensity to question authority or, worse, their desire to live lives free from authoritarian reality warping. With a Ministry of Truth amply funding news outlets, the U.S. could finally catch up to the rest of the civilized world!
Slashdot Mirror
Probably no more thousands to drop as you live out your socialist dystopia. ;)
Let's just go with the "70% want healthcare for everyone." What they *want* and *have been sold* is the fictitious idea of "free healthcare." What they will get is a national ID card which, if they're lucky, will result in mediocre healthcare the government wishes to ration out. What they likely wouldn't want, if they were well informed rather than propagandized by Leftists, is a completely crashed economy, politicized health issues, and a nanny state to control the vices they currently enjoy.
"Solved"? Um, thanks, but as an American, I don't rely on my government to run my entire life. That's how my country was designed. Some here achieve success, and some fail, but-- thankfully-- we're not a gray goo of sub-mediocre egalitarianism. And luckily, there are many opportunities to not fail.
To summarize, you believe that poor people are [too dumb/unable to figure out how/unable to take a day off] to get IDs. It's such a dumb argument to make, but so oft-repeated, that those making it don't even think about what it means.
To champion the straw man of "convenience" over "legitimate elections" is quite disturbing; also, lots of poor people have IDs already, because just about everything significant requires ID such as renting an apartment, driving, buying alcohol, and getting a job.
The whole voter ID issue has been politicized and racialized, to the detriment of election legitimacy. See Project Veritas, who are currently exposing election fraud.
>Health care
You're missing the point. The "feel good" thing of single payer healthcare is that "everyone is covered" and not "everyone gets great healthcare." There is a big difference between carrying a national healthcare card and receiving *actual* quality healthcare. And, it is simply not affordable. See Finland (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47496326) for more information about all the stuff wrong with government controlled healthcare.
> Taking care of your poor
Show me another place where there is an obesity epidemic among the poor? While perhaps an oversimplification, fat poor people are a pretty good indication that the problems of the US poor are quite different from those in other countries.
> proper democracy
The US is a democratic republic. The concept of "pure democracy" (is that what you mean by "proper"?) in modern day seems to championed by those who value winning elections over those who value giving all people a voice in politics, not just coastal progressive l33t cities.
>> Religion teaches some people to feel superior to other people because they believe something stupid.
My best guess is that either you do not understand, and never bothered to try to understand, religion, and are pretending to be able to read the minds of religious people.
Or, you have experienced religion and felt superior at one point, then switched to the more contemporary version of feeling superior, which is to proclaim "religion is bad" and "religious people are stupid."
Or, you have an inferiority complex that is triggered by faith you wish you could, but don't, understand.
This is a very good point about religion, and specifically monotheism. It was the belief in a single non-human (or "sky" as the uninformed say) god that dismantled the general principle that leaders of cities/kingdoms/territories themselves were gods. In this manner, civilization was able to derive principles from concepts higher than human power.
In this day and age, it is of the utmost importance for the communist types not only to profess atheism, but also to ridicule theist religion. Faith in a deity rather than a human power structure means there is always a higher calling than the human call to obey would-be communist (or whatever other brand of authoritarian) overlords.
Replace Religion with Progressivism. No noticeable difference in truthiness.
When was the last time you saw that happen?
Which of these CV items has anything to do with "competence"? I see "passing the bar" and "teaching" as things she has done. Having no law experience, I can't speak to the competence needed to pass the bar. I can only assume "competent test taker." As a former student, I have had both competent and incompetent teachers; so, regardless of where she has taught, why would I accept her teaching experience as evidence of her competence? In conclusion, why would I attribute "competence" to her ability to lead?
I will say that her Instagram beer video show *incompetence* when it comes to acting as a normal human being.
Let's examine your Trump list, shall we?
>> He's taken numerous steps to dismantle environmental protections.
Do you mean regulations? Regulations are not directly responsible for anything other than raising the cost of market entry for small businesses, thereby stifling innovation that could lead to technological advances to create renewable low- or no-carbon energy, or technology that can scrub the air of CO2. Regulations may be good guidelines for things, but are also vectors for corruption and foster the domination of corporatism. Also, I have yet to hear a good explanation of why people freak about about the removal of regulations. When regulations are removed, do companies all of a sudden say, "Aha! Now I can once again begin killing all the wildlife and stop filtering the pollution from my smokestacks!"?
>> Heck boosting coal use is explicitly a major part of his platform.
Energy independence is important, as are jobs. Championing coal serves both of those needs. These are immediate needs. It certainly makes sense to explore other sources of energy given the finite amount of fossil fuel we have {{cough}}generation 4 nuclear{{cough}}, and the pollution fossil fuel creates {{cough}}generation 4 nuclear{{cough}}, but we have to think beyond small-scale and unreliable stuff like wind {{cough}}generation 4 nuclear{{cough}}.
>>He's appointed numerous climate change denying energy industry cronies to the EPA
Please show me someone who believes that the climate is not changing. I stopped believing that there were "climate change deniers" within seconds of daring to look at the "skeptic" side of the climate change issue. Nobody who I have come across denies the science data showing climate changes throughout time.
>>and they've suppressed information
What information have they suppressed? Is it the secret information that proves that everyone should be alarmed? Is it the 12-years-and-we're-dead information? Wait, I've heard that one, so that's not suppressed. Is it the 97% agreement thing? Nope, heard that one. Actually, that 97% thing is dubious because they included scientists who wrote papers that were tangentially related to climate alarmist dogma, some of whom have expressed surprise or irritation that they were included in that 97% figure. Is that the suppressed information?
>> and dismissed staff that won't play ball, or just because they're scientists who've pushed research and policies that contradict the pro-coal and CO2-is-good agenda.
Politics works this way; when you have the ability to hire and fire as an executive, you get to pick people who support your agenda. I'm curious about the research and policies of which you speak? Is there some sort of shortage of research funding for climate change alarmists who keep inventing ways to blame climate change for every single thing in the world, including racism? On policies-- well, I am still failing to connect the dots on how the government is going to pass any law that is going to reverse this now-irreversible climate change. Or is it still not too late? Or will we go back to using the term "global warming" rather than "climate change"? Will we switch over to "global cooling" again? Perhaps that can write the law up like Mad Libs (no political pun intended, but noted), where they can just fill in the blanks every few years to suit the current trend of political bashing?
Good point about this "youthful" mindset polluting institutional decision making. I kind of wonder, if the government *must* intervene (which, arguably, they shouldn't, but that's my American mindset), why the only tool at their disposal seems to be *banning*? Why can't they do something like offer grants to incentivize inventing a better alternative to these polluting plastics? Or give tax breaks to restaurant chains that use non-plastic stuff? Or give tax breaks to companies who package things with materials comprising less than a pre-defined threshold of plastic?
BTW, I just ate at a Boston Market (fast food chain in the US), and was surprised to see non-plastic utensils. Then, I looked more closely. The metal was actually cloudy from not being cleaned properly, with spots of some type of mystery substance, and kind of rough and sticky. I would have loved having some packaged one-time-use plasticware so I could avoid worrying about my dirty silverware. I would say this (possibility of germ-infested utensils) is likely one of many unintended consequences of moving away from one-time-use plastics.
Cookie-cutter denial, the up and coming new Orange Man Bad outrage. :)
I'm curious how much illegal immigration affects energy consumption in the US? We're so caught up in how the media spins illegal immigration (and shutting down people who point out the destruction of low-skilled jobs available to impoverished American citizens), I hardly hear anyone talk about the environmental impact of illegal immigrants. Many of the places they come from don't really push "energy consciousness," an American value stemming from its relatively high standards of living.
It's a good notion and, on its face, simple. In fact, it is so simple that there is no reason for legislation supporting the notion to be more than a single page. Single paragraph, even. Unfortunately, legislation and simplicity are incompatible. So, what I'm opposed to is a complicated regulation that is ultimately going to come with a cost that prices small businesses out of the market, stifling innovation. If, however, the scope were only tractors, or the only requirement with such regulation were to provide owners with a technical manual and eliminate regulations preventing companies from specializing in after market parts and repairs, sounds good to me.
Summary: The problem today is not everybody thinks in the superior way that I do. If those who disagree with my worldview would just shut up, there would be no problem.
Does your boss understand every detail about the job s/he expects you to do? The larger the organization, the less likely the bosses actually know how to do the stuff required of their reports. The boss's job is to steer reports in the direction of the organization at large.
I can't speak to the dollars and cost, etc., of space exploration, and I'm willing to bet that you can't either (much less comprehend how to manage a national budget). "Percentages of budget" assume getting the job done has something to do with the constantly changing value of a slice of an imaginary pie which, in your superficial political opinion, should be sliced differently.
In fact, this situation looks like a leader laying down a challenge for engineers to figure out a way to get something significant done within a time and money restraint, a relatively typical scenario for large-scale projects (and, from what I can gather about engineers, something they are good at and actually enjoy). So what's your problem? Pence's faith? Orange man bad? Or is it that the system is oppressing your vastly superior intellect, thus preventing you from saving the world?
The government doing what the government is *supposed* to do is not socialism. The national space program is not socialism. In fact, socialism would be if the government absorbed the companies in question then micromanaged all of the decisions about all the stuff they did and built.
See also trash collection; building infrastructure; the electric grid.
I agree with the "Interesting" mod of this post, not because of any type of new information or insight, but because this is an excellent expression of the new cognitive dissonance blueprint for the anti-Trump crowd. Watch how many versions of this propagandist word thinking you see twisting in the digital wind, filled with spillover from dashed hopes and dreams of the demise of Bad Orange Man. These sentiments are the new (energy efficient) laser pointer you will see others follow passionately.
Reversing or eliminating a regulation has nothing to do with the actual creation of stuff. Therefore, claiming that eliminating a regulation *results* in something (such as higher costs or more pollution) is just pushing an agenda with a lie. The summary suggests this particular regulation was never more widely applied anyway, so how is killing it going to have *any* effect on *anything*? But, if such effects were estimated, did the calculations account for the increased energy independence of the US since Trump took office?
"Critics say"? Are these critics members of "The Natural Resources Defense Council"? The activist organization that profits from exaggerating or otherwise inventing environmental issues to complain about (an organization that nobody ever heard of and is exploiting the "orange man bad" zeitgeist to get their name out there)? *Those* critics?
Targeting entails selecting focus based on a set of criteria. That is discrimination. So, how can you target without discriminating?
>> You. Are. Not. Being. Oppressed.
I often find this particular way of formatting emphasis is attached to superficial babble those who employ it are mindlessly repeating due to the frustration of having only a superficial understanding of points of view they are arguing against. On Twitter, this is often accompanied by hand clap emojis. While telegraphing the intent to convey importance, it is unintentionally comedic.
This oversimplication of the First Amendment is wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Essentially, these social media platforms have transformed into the "public square," and censorship on those platforms is a violation of the First Amendment.
Ha, it's that level of obscurity and pseudo-intellectualism that makes this "men can be women" so stupid. "Oh no, your tiny pea brain can't understand how complicated it is. My post-graduate-educated colleagues and I have invented our own language to describe this phenomenon."
Nobody did "care" about gender in any significant sense until it was politicized, and pseudo-science was invoked to call people stupid science deniers. In short, men cannot be women. You can choose to indulge a person's manifestation of gender dysphoria out of politeness or self-righteousness, but you don't get to impose your fictional terminology to "prove" your position, nor shame others for not wasting time wading through your gobbledygook dictionary.
That's an awesome idea. Some might argue this would be opening the doors to propaganda. I say that's fine. The more we bolster and amplify the current corporate propaganda machine, the less ignorant the populace would be. Fixing Facebook's journalism problem in this manner could ultimately fix the citizens in fly-over states by snuffing out their propensity to question authority or, worse, their desire to live lives free from authoritarian reality warping. With a Ministry of Truth amply funding news outlets, the U.S. could finally catch up to the rest of the civilized world!