The difference between both parties on trade and borders is relatively small such that in general they're BOTH guilty.
While GOP publicly complains about leaky borders, in practice they've dropped the ball when they've had legislative opportunities to do anything about it, such as when W had GOP in both houses, and again when Obama wanted to increase the number of border guards a couple of years go. GOP voted it down saying it would add to the debt, and some other silly complaint about immigration judge rules that had nothing to do with guard quantity.
This is because businesses want cheap labor and legally bribe the GOP and Democrats to keep cheap labor flowing via campaign donations. GOP gives lip-service to their base about cracking down on undocumented workers, but then do nothing and point fingers.
Sig: Only an out-of-touch idiot like Romney would ever think that Russia is our enemy! -- Hillary Clinton [roughly paraphrased]
According to Trump, Russia is not. The "problems" between us and them are caused by OUR bad negotiating, in Trump's view.
Side note: believing 90% of polls saying Trump would lose, a minor part of me was sad because I thought it would very curious to see how somebody as bombastic as him would deal with world problems. Looks like we are gonna find out...
That's assuming the so-called losers want money instead of jobs.
For males it's especially difficult: our career is our #1 defining quality to society for good or bad. For women the equivalent is looks. That may not be fair either, but it's less career pressure. If a lady has looks, she doesn't have to work so hard.
Protectionism has mostly "worked" in Japan, at least in terms of jobs. They have a low unemployment rate compared to other countries. But many products are indeed more expensive because of it. Whether jobs or "stuff" is more important is a subjective choice.
Manufactured goods have been consistently dropping or flat-lining per inflation.
Housing and medical care have traditionally been rising over time. Housing because population increases yet factories cannot make new land (although Japan & China are trying).
Medical rises because it's still labor-intensive in a hard-to-outsource way, and new treatments keep coming. In that past where people would just die, there are now treatments, but they are expensive.
College is growing more expensive because a college education is almost a necessity to avoid being poor, as manufacturing and warehouse jobs are offshored or automated. Bernie was right about college being the new high-school. More demand usually means higher prices, at least for a while.
Stocks and bonds are different animals than consumer products such that I won't consider them here.
Average inflation has been sub-par. I'd like to see Helicopter Money theory tried, at least incrementally. It might just work.
Scientists disagree also. Some will perceive that Evidence A should weigh more than Evidence B in determining which theory best fits reality, which may not match another scientist's weightings, for example.
It occurred to me that what may be more objective and perhaps simpler to implement is to have a utility that links to the original source. For example, if a politician says, "According to the Department of Foo, TribbleCare will double in 4 years." A link to the best match(s) of the source of that claim are then presented so the reader can see the original themselves.
Keep things simple, make it an optional plugin. Stop cramming so much bells and whistles into browsers. It's a recipe for slowness, bloat, bugs, and difficulty in changing directions in the future, as too much baggage has to be ported.
Hold on, Tex. There are multiple things to consider here.
First, being imperfect does not make a fact-checking site overall "bad". Nothing is perfect. One can find flaws in anything non-trivial if one looks hard enough.
Second, we don't know if it's biased or merely made a mistake. For example, Politifact graded Hillary's statement that their family was nearly broke after leaving the White-house due to legal bills over sexual allegations as "mostly false", but their primary reason was that Clintons had lots of alleged earning potential, and thus not in dire straits. However, Politifact did NOT demonstrate that they didn't face financial problems. I found the "earning potential" reasoning a weak justification for "mostly false". If Politifact were out to bash Republicans only, they probably wouldn't have rated it as such.
Third, the ACA claim evaluation was based on the sources the claimer gave. Politifact was not evaluating ACA directly, but rather the claimer's line of reasoning and use of sources. Personally, I'd give the statement a "half true", but Politifact doesn't have that level for some reason.
A rate your implication that Politifact is usually wrong or useless or biased as "False".
Over time, even a tiny thrust can build you up to phenomenal speeds.
That's why it's so hard to test, YET so enticing at the same time.
There may indeed be a very minor oddity, in terms of effect, in quantum physics that we haven't discovered yet that allows the phenomenon without throwing out all prior knowledge. We just may be applying existing knowledge wrong, assuming a spherical cow somewhere when it's really an octahedron or the like.
I'm at a loss to think of something from technological history that is comparable to this possibility: something that didn't seen possible or feasible under the known laws of physics or nature, but turned out to actually "fly".
Any suggestions?
A weak example is that before the V2 rocket, some experts thought rockets wouldn't work in the vacuum of space, but that turned out wrong when actually tested.
There's still a good possibility the EM gizmo is a mistake in measurement, but I get geekbumps thinking about the possibilities, like a Proxima b probe taking only 15 years.
Economics-101, says that protectionism and tariff wars always hurt both parties.
As others pointed out, theory and practice are often different.
For one, lopsided trade will result in lopsided cash flow, which may result in bubbles, as excess cash in narrow sectors often does. Economists still haven't figured out how to prevent bubbles, even after 400 years of them. Thus, their theories are missing some pieces or their cows are too spherical.
And Japan has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the world despite being fairly protectionist. One may argue products are more expensive there because of it, but choosing jobs over stuff is a subjective trade-off that's up to the population.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between both parties on trade and borders is relatively small such that in general they're BOTH guilty.
While GOP publicly complains about leaky borders, in practice they've dropped the ball when they've had legislative opportunities to do anything about it, such as when W had GOP in both houses, and again when Obama wanted to increase the number of border guards a couple of years go. GOP voted it down saying it would add to the debt, and some other silly complaint about immigration judge rules that had nothing to do with guard quantity.
This is because businesses want cheap labor and legally bribe the GOP and Democrats to keep cheap labor flowing via campaign donations. GOP gives lip-service to their base about cracking down on undocumented workers, but then do nothing and point fingers.
You saying less kids is the solution to enough jobs? If so, a real "jobs program" would be handing out free birth control.
What impact did BD have on working conditions?
Every nation is different, by the way, with unique demographics of its own.
According to Trump, Russia is not. The "problems" between us and them are caused by OUR bad negotiating, in Trump's view.
Side note: believing 90% of polls saying Trump would lose, a minor part of me was sad because I thought it would very curious to see how somebody as bombastic as him would deal with world problems. Looks like we are gonna find out...
That's assuming the so-called losers want money instead of jobs.
For males it's especially difficult: our career is our #1 defining quality to society for good or bad. For women the equivalent is looks. That may not be fair either, but it's less career pressure. If a lady has looks, she doesn't have to work so hard.
Grabbonomics?
Protectionism has mostly "worked" in Japan, at least in terms of jobs. They have a low unemployment rate compared to other countries. But many products are indeed more expensive because of it. Whether jobs or "stuff" is more important is a subjective choice.
That's normal: some things go up, some go down.
Manufactured goods have been consistently dropping or flat-lining per inflation.
Housing and medical care have traditionally been rising over time. Housing because population increases yet factories cannot make new land (although Japan & China are trying).
Medical rises because it's still labor-intensive in a hard-to-outsource way, and new treatments keep coming. In that past where people would just die, there are now treatments, but they are expensive.
College is growing more expensive because a college education is almost a necessity to avoid being poor, as manufacturing and warehouse jobs are offshored or automated. Bernie was right about college being the new high-school. More demand usually means higher prices, at least for a while.
Stocks and bonds are different animals than consumer products such that I won't consider them here.
Average inflation has been sub-par. I'd like to see Helicopter Money theory tried, at least incrementally. It might just work.
That is disconcerting, but remember overall Trump is a moderate, stubborn, and flip-flops.
If GOP believe they've just been handed a blank check, they don't know The Donald.
Where the GOP matches Trump, laws will pass. Where it doesn't match will turn into dramatic showdowns. The "Bully Pulpit" will be aptly named.
Get the popcorn, fireworks will fly...
Until the Republican Headquarters is under water, they won't allow shit to be done about it.
Pro-Hillary phone-lines down? No problem, just use email ... oh, wait
Scientists disagree also. Some will perceive that Evidence A should weigh more than Evidence B in determining which theory best fits reality, which may not match another scientist's weightings, for example.
It occurred to me that what may be more objective and perhaps simpler to implement is to have a utility that links to the original source. For example, if a politician says, "According to the Department of Foo, TribbleCare will double in 4 years." A link to the best match(s) of the source of that claim are then presented so the reader can see the original themselves.
Keep things simple, make it an optional plugin. Stop cramming so much bells and whistles into browsers. It's a recipe for slowness, bloat, bugs, and difficulty in changing directions in the future, as too much baggage has to be ported.
Hold on, Tex. There are multiple things to consider here.
First, being imperfect does not make a fact-checking site overall "bad". Nothing is perfect. One can find flaws in anything non-trivial if one looks hard enough.
Second, we don't know if it's biased or merely made a mistake. For example, Politifact graded Hillary's statement that their family was nearly broke after leaving the White-house due to legal bills over sexual allegations as "mostly false", but their primary reason was that Clintons had lots of alleged earning potential, and thus not in dire straits. However, Politifact did NOT demonstrate that they didn't face financial problems. I found the "earning potential" reasoning a weak justification for "mostly false". If Politifact were out to bash Republicans only, they probably wouldn't have rated it as such.
Third, the ACA claim evaluation was based on the sources the claimer gave. Politifact was not evaluating ACA directly, but rather the claimer's line of reasoning and use of sources. Personally, I'd give the statement a "half true", but Politifact doesn't have that level for some reason.
A rate your implication that Politifact is usually wrong or useless or biased as "False".
About the nature of possible suspects.
I believe the main suspect was already caught by then.
Guessing out of your arse about internal motivations of others is rude and stupid, and solves nothing. Don't be a neckbeard.
"Hillary's emails are both legal and illegal at the same time"
I challenge you to give the name of one prominent politician who's been in the public eye or news for at least 8 years with a shorter "lie list".
Rat's! my Note 7 Drive has serious competition now. (Gotta change my sig, too)
They are testing it on outcast dissidents.
That's why it's so hard to test, YET so enticing at the same time.
There may indeed be a very minor oddity, in terms of effect, in quantum physics that we haven't discovered yet that allows the phenomenon without throwing out all prior knowledge. We just may be applying existing knowledge wrong, assuming a spherical cow somewhere when it's really an octahedron or the like.
I'm at a loss to think of something from technological history that is comparable to this possibility: something that didn't seen possible or feasible under the known laws of physics or nature, but turned out to actually "fly".
Any suggestions?
A weak example is that before the V2 rocket, some experts thought rockets wouldn't work in the vacuum of space, but that turned out wrong when actually tested.
There's still a good possibility the EM gizmo is a mistake in measurement, but I get geekbumps thinking about the possibilities, like a Proxima b probe taking only 15 years.
Comey said it wouldn't work, then he said it would, then it wouldn't.
Or is it the other way around? I lost track.
Hey, that would be a good thing, don't knock it.
Trump's hair* corrupts the law of gravity, I would note.
* or the Tribbles within
As others pointed out, theory and practice are often different.
For one, lopsided trade will result in lopsided cash flow, which may result in bubbles, as excess cash in narrow sectors often does. Economists still haven't figured out how to prevent bubbles, even after 400 years of them. Thus, their theories are missing some pieces or their cows are too spherical.
And Japan has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the world despite being fairly protectionist. One may argue products are more expensive there because of it, but choosing jobs over stuff is a subjective trade-off that's up to the population.
The secret weapon: an SQL "JOIN" clause!
Quick, patent it before somebody else does! Everything else obvious gets patented.
It's not my job to format your argument properly and cite your paragraphs properly. You are being lazy. A debate judge would flunk it.
Correction:
Before: She apparently violated the State Dept. policy for using such a service...
Corrected: She apparently violated the State Dept. policy for using such a service without getting written sign-off (approval) from the IT dept first.