The graph you posted shows the % of people in the country in 2018 with various levels of education. The issue you were highlighting about potential downward pressure on unskilled wages is due to the disproportionately high number of foreign born people without even the equivalent of a high school diploma. However, for higher levels of education you see the opposite effect. 14% of the population in 2018 were foreign born, but 20% of the population with graduate degrees were foreign born, meaning the chance of a foreign born person having a graduate degree would be about 50% higher.
Yes, that's pretty much what I said in summarizing it. The impact on wages depends on the skill set, and we get a disproportionately high number of unskilled workers.
I have no idea what your point is about them having a higher than average number of people with graduate degrees if we are still seeing a downward wage pressure on the lowest income earners in this country, you know, the people who need better wages the most. This, and most of your post to be honest, seem like irrelevant facts that have no bearing on this.
The people who are being hurt are the mass of the workforce, people who are in low skill jobs. I will remind you that the number 1 private employer in America is Wal-Mart, followed by Amazon, and then some fast food chains, to give a sense of the kind of economy we have. Why on earth should I care about their productivity for their employer? Greater profits for corporate America is not my concern here.
In what way is this harm offset or justified by the fact that more of them have graduate degrees, etc etc? It's not. This isn't important. If those people (high skilled individuals) aren't causing harm, there's no need to take issue with them coming in.
I was trying to put things in a wider context. You were making the point that immigration can have a depressing effect on unskilled wage levels. I was pointing out that this is the result of only 1 aspect of immigration. In considering whether immigration is a good thing overall I think you need to consider a wider range of issues, such as:
- what seems to me a very clear overall economic benefit to the country.
- the influx of highly educated immigrants.
- the cultural richness (I know you're not impressed by things like the wider range of foods available, but others think differently).
- the greater drive for innovation (which is not limited to the more highly educated immigrants).
As I said before I also think that there is an easy solution to the problem you identify - instituting an effective minimum wage. Personally I think that would not only help with this particular problem, but have much wider beneficial effects as well (such as reigning in a bit the current tendency to extreme income inequality and the ability for more rapacious companies to exploit the less-educated pool of labor).
You said you don't see a problem with immigration by the better educated. That sounds like Trump's preferred solution - to carve off just the 'best' immigrants, i.e. the wealthy, well-educated, Westernized ones and forbid everyone else. I suspect over time that would have a detrimental effect on the US.
An example could be the potential impact on social mobility. There is already far less of that in the US than there used to be (partly as a result of the growing income inequality), so that while the 'American Dream' is still a strong part of people's identity in the US, it does not reflect present reality - shutting off immigration would help to reinforce that trend to social stratification across generations.
On the Soleimani shooting, Trump (supported by Pompeo) has now said the reason for that was to do with specific plans to attack 4 US embassies. Pending any further release of information, I'm in the Bernie Sanders camp on this: "The difficulty that we have, and I don't mean to be rude here, is that we have a president who is a pathological liar," he told NBC News.
"So could it be true? I guess it could be. Is it likely to be true? Probably not,"
On the Soleimani shooting, Trump (supported by Pompeo) has now said the reason for that was to do with specific plans to attack 4 US embassies. Pending any further release of information, I'm in the Bernie Sanders camp on this: "The difficulty that we have, and I don't mean to be rude here, is that we have a president who is a pathological liar," he told NBC News.
"So could it be true? I guess it could be. Is it likely to be true? Probably not,"
More and more 'Truth' seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The more lies and half-truths there are on both sides seems to just entrench beliefs in the 'where I'm at right now' camps. There is no 'lets see where you're coming from and meet in between' anymore. Both sides have good ideas that should be explored but with the entrenched ideology I just don't think either side will admit when they're wrong and shit-can bad ideas that don't work (liberals seem to be particularly blind to outcomes that don't adhere to their beliefs but there are plenty of conservative ideas that don't work also). This is just so wrong from my more centrist point of view. As a scientist I'm willing to try different ideas on an experimental basis, but if ideology/intentions instead of results is going to be the bar, I just don't see a good outcome happening...
Edit: Just as an aside, the experimental side of me is why I'm leaning to Bernie Sanders. A lot of his ideas haven't been tried yet and that intrigues me. The caveat is that if his ideas don't work I'm afraid that we'll be stuck with them rather than having them reworked or shit-canned. It's a real dilemma for me whether or not to risk trying them out...
On the Soleimani shooting, Trump (supported by Pompeo) has now said the reason for that was to do with specific plans to attack 4 US embassies. Pending any further release of information, I'm in the Bernie Sanders camp on this: "The difficulty that we have, and I don't mean to be rude here, is that we have a president who is a pathological liar," he told NBC News.
"So could it be true? I guess it could be. Is it likely to be true? Probably not,"
More and more 'Truth' seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The more lies and half-truths there are on both sides seems to just entrench beliefs in the 'where I'm at right now' camps. There is no 'lets see where you're coming from and meet in between' anymore. Both sides have good ideas that should be explored but with the entrenched ideology I just don't think either side will admit when they're wrong and shit-can bad ideas that don't work (liberals seem to be particularly blind to outcomes that don't adhere to their beliefs but there are plenty of conservative ideas that don't work also). This is just so wrong from my more centrist point of view. As a scientist I'm willing to try different ideas on an experimental basis, but if ideology/intentions instead of results is going to be the bar, I just don't see a good outcome happening...
Edit: Just as an aside, the experimental side of me is why I'm leaning to Bernie Sanders. A lot of his ideas haven't been tried yet and that intrigues me. The caveat is that if his ideas don't work I'm afraid that we'll be stuck with them rather than having them reworked or shit-canned. It's a real dilemma for me whether or not to risk trying them out...
There are two different things here. I can understand your desire to test out ideas in the real world when it's uncertain how they will work - two sides both say their ideas are better, so let's try them out and see ...
That though is a very different thing from whether you tell the truth from your perspective. My strong suspicion here is that Trump is simply making up another of his stories (as opposed to making a credible interpretation of information even though that information could be interpreted differently by others). I think he knows he's lying, but he just doesn't care - and I find that hard to stomach.
On the Soleimani shooting, Trump (supported by Pompeo) has now said the reason for that was to do with specific plans to attack 4 US embassies. Pending any further release of information, I'm in the Bernie Sanders camp on this: "The difficulty that we have, and I don't mean to be rude here, is that we have a president who is a pathological liar," he told NBC News.
"So could it be true? I guess it could be. Is it likely to be true? Probably not,"
More and more 'Truth' seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The more lies and half-truths there are on both sides seems to just entrench beliefs in the 'where I'm at right now' camps. There is no 'lets see where you're coming from and meet in between' anymore. Both sides have good ideas that should be explored but with the entrenched ideology I just don't think either side will admit when they're wrong and shit-can bad ideas that don't work (liberals seem to be particularly blind to outcomes that don't adhere to their beliefs but there are plenty of conservative ideas that don't work also). This is just so wrong from my more centrist point of view. As a scientist I'm willing to try different ideas on an experimental basis, but if ideology/intentions instead of results is going to be the bar, I just don't see a good outcome happening...
Edit: Just as an aside, the experimental side of me is why I'm leaning to Bernie Sanders. A lot of his ideas haven't been tried yet and that intrigues me. The caveat is that if his ideas don't work I'm afraid that we'll be stuck with them rather than having them reworked or shit-canned. It's a real dilemma for me whether or not to risk trying them out...
There are two different things here. I can understand your desire to test out ideas in the real world when it's uncertain how they will work - two sides both say their ideas are better, so let's try them out and see ...
That though is a very different thing from whether you tell the truth from your perspective. My strong suspicion here is that Trump is simply making up another of his stories (as opposed to making a credible interpretation of information even though that information could be interpreted differently by others). I think he knows he's lying, but he just doesn't care - and I find that hard to stomach.
I like you @Grond0. You seem like a kindred spirit to me.
I tend to think that both sides lie, and it's for the same reason. Neither side truly believes that the common person knows what's good for them and thus believes that the 'other side' is trying to deceive them to their point of view. There is truth in that belief, but there is also arrogance in it as well. The ugly 'truth' is that there's some merit to both sides and neither side will ever admit to any truth to the other. Ever!!! That's why two parties can't possibly represent everybody, and why I'd ever even consider voting for a Bernie Sanders considering my personal beliefs. I tend to think that my way of thinking might explain why Trump was able to win in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2016 also (and why he might be able to do it again in 2020).
He isn't "probably" making it up. He made it up. It isn't true. And there is a huge difference between lying occasionally (which makes you a normal human) and lying about EVERYTHING. I swear to god Trump is graded on the biggest curve in human history at this point. If he doesn't shit in his hand and fling it at reporters, it's somehow viewed as impressive. They weren't going to blow up four embassies. They weren't going to blow up any embassies. They've now changed the defintion of "imminent" to (I shit you not, according to Pompeo) "sometime, somewhere". Well, that really narrows it down for us, Mikey. Don't know how we ever doubted you. I remember when Rumsfeld said, when asked where the weapons of mass destruction were after no one was finding any said "We know where they are, they are somewhere north, south, east or west of Baghdad".
He isn't "probably" making it up. He made it up. It isn't true. And there is a huge difference between lying occasionally (which makes you a normal human) and lying about EVERYTHING. I swear to god Trump is graded on the biggest curve in human history at this point. If he doesn't shit in his hand and fling it at reporters, it's somehow viewed as impressive. They weren't going to blow up four embassies. They weren't going to blow up any embassies. They've now changed the defintion of "imminent" to (I shit you not, according to Pompeo) "sometime, somewhere". Well, that really narrows it down for us, Mikey. Don't know how we ever doubted you. I remember when Rumsfeld said, when asked where the weapons of mass destruction were after no one was finding any said "We know where they are, they are somewhere north, south, east or west of Baghdad".
That's the problem I have with Trump. Even if he's telling the truth you can't tell. I won't shed a tear for Soleimani but was this the right time to get rid of him? Who the Hell knows? If 50 people died in some attack he planned that's still less than the lives lost in the airliner shot down over Tehran. Truth to tell, there's no way of knowing whether or not it was truly worth it. That's why some modicum of trust in our President is needed (and precisely what we don't have currently).
On the Soleimani shooting, Trump (supported by Pompeo) has now said the reason for that was to do with specific plans to attack 4 US embassies. Pending any further release of information, I'm in the Bernie Sanders camp on this: "The difficulty that we have, and I don't mean to be rude here, is that we have a president who is a pathological liar," he told NBC News.
"So could it be true? I guess it could be. Is it likely to be true? Probably not,"
More and more 'Truth' seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The more lies and half-truths there are on both sides seems to just entrench beliefs in the 'where I'm at right now' camps. There is no 'lets see where you're coming from and meet in between' anymore. Both sides have good ideas that should be explored but with the entrenched ideology I just don't think either side will admit when they're wrong and shit-can bad ideas that don't work (liberals seem to be particularly blind to outcomes that don't adhere to their beliefs but there are plenty of conservative ideas that don't work also). This is just so wrong from my more centrist point of view. As a scientist I'm willing to try different ideas on an experimental basis, but if ideology/intentions instead of results is going to be the bar, I just don't see a good outcome happening...
Edit: Just as an aside, the experimental side of me is why I'm leaning to Bernie Sanders. A lot of his ideas haven't been tried yet and that intrigues me. The caveat is that if his ideas don't work I'm afraid that we'll be stuck with them rather than having them reworked or shit-canned. It's a real dilemma for me whether or not to risk trying them out...
There are two different things here. I can understand your desire to test out ideas in the real world when it's uncertain how they will work - two sides both say their ideas are better, so let's try them out and see ...
That though is a very different thing from whether you tell the truth from your perspective. My strong suspicion here is that Trump is simply making up another of his stories (as opposed to making a credible interpretation of information even though that information could be interpreted differently by others). I think he knows he's lying, but he just doesn't care - and I find that hard to stomach.
I like you @Grond0. You seem like a kindred spirit to me.
I tend to think that both sides lie, and it's for the same reason. Neither side truly believes that the common person knows what's good for them and thus believes that the 'other side' is trying to deceive them to their point of view. There is truth in that belief, but there is also arrogance in it as well. The ugly 'truth' is that there's some merit to both sides and neither side will ever admit to any truth to the other. Ever!!! That's why two parties can't possibly represent everybody, and why I'd ever even consider voting for a Bernie Sanders considering my personal beliefs. I tend to think that my way of thinking might explain why Trump was able to win in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2016 also (and why he might be able to do it again in 2020).
I don't know American politics well enough to assess whether both sides have traditionally lied equally while playing the game of trying to make their policies seem more acceptable. I accept though that no party is going to represent everyone over time (I've voted at one time or another for every significant party in the UK). Edit: except Brexit / UKIP.
I still think what Trump does though is different in kind as well as degree from what you describe. His lies are primarily to support his personal aggrandizement, not because he thinks they're going to help implement policies that (in his view) would be best for the nation. That's why he regularly makes false claims about things that have no relevance to policies (like the famous incident over crowd sizes right at the start of his Presidency).
Though I have a particular problem with Trump, in the last few years I do have the strong impression that there is more of that sort of bare-faced lying going on from the Republicans than the Democrats. There might be a number of reasons for that, e.g. the greater scope for corruption and abuse of power by a governing party probably provides more motivation to lie about personal actions. From this distance though I think it's more than that. To some degree Trump is shifting the goalposts - making things acceptable that were previously not so. In addition it seems to me he's also appointing some like-minded individuals who have seen him get away with the use of 'alternative facts' and think of that as just another useful tactic.
I do realize that I'm probably in the minority in advocating a more scientific approach to debate, with a high degree of respect for the truth. Most voters are probably far more comfortable than me with the idea that lying is just something politicians do and what matters is the policies they put in place. Perhaps it's my own version of a zero-tolerance approach to anti-social behavior (like the idea that if you crack down on graffiti and dropping chewing gum, you will prevent people moving onto more serious offences). I do think it's likely that if you ignore people lying about relatively unimportant things, they will naturally come to regard that as the best way to deal with concerns over much more important things in the future.
He isn't "probably" making it up. He made it up. It isn't true. And there is a huge difference between lying occasionally (which makes you a normal human) and lying about EVERYTHING. I swear to god Trump is graded on the biggest curve in human history at this point. If he doesn't shit in his hand and fling it at reporters, it's somehow viewed as impressive. They weren't going to blow up four embassies. They weren't going to blow up any embassies. They've now changed the defintion of "imminent" to (I shit you not, according to Pompeo) "sometime, somewhere". Well, that really narrows it down for us, Mikey. Don't know how we ever doubted you. I remember when Rumsfeld said, when asked where the weapons of mass destruction were after no one was finding any said "We know where they are, they are somewhere north, south, east or west of Baghdad".
That's the problem I have with Trump. Even if he's telling the truth you can't tell. I won't shed a tear for Soleimani but was this the right time to get rid of him? Who the Hell knows? If 50 people died in some attack he planned that's still less than the lives lost in the airliner shot down over Tehran. Truth to tell, there's no way of knowing whether or not it was truly worth it. That's why some modicum of trust in our President is needed (and precisely what we don't have currently).
Responded in the wrong thread. Can a moderator please delete this post? Thanks...
On the Soleimani shooting, Trump (supported by Pompeo) has now said the reason for that was to do with specific plans to attack 4 US embassies. Pending any further release of information, I'm in the Bernie Sanders camp on this: "The difficulty that we have, and I don't mean to be rude here, is that we have a president who is a pathological liar," he told NBC News.
"So could it be true? I guess it could be. Is it likely to be true? Probably not,"
More and more 'Truth' seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The more lies and half-truths there are on both sides seems to just entrench beliefs in the 'where I'm at right now' camps. There is no 'lets see where you're coming from and meet in between' anymore. Both sides have good ideas that should be explored but with the entrenched ideology I just don't think either side will admit when they're wrong and shit-can bad ideas that don't work (liberals seem to be particularly blind to outcomes that don't adhere to their beliefs but there are plenty of conservative ideas that don't work also). This is just so wrong from my more centrist point of view. As a scientist I'm willing to try different ideas on an experimental basis, but if ideology/intentions instead of results is going to be the bar, I just don't see a good outcome happening...
Edit: Just as an aside, the experimental side of me is why I'm leaning to Bernie Sanders. A lot of his ideas haven't been tried yet and that intrigues me. The caveat is that if his ideas don't work I'm afraid that we'll be stuck with them rather than having them reworked or shit-canned. It's a real dilemma for me whether or not to risk trying them out...
There are two different things here. I can understand your desire to test out ideas in the real world when it's uncertain how they will work - two sides both say their ideas are better, so let's try them out and see ...
That though is a very different thing from whether you tell the truth from your perspective. My strong suspicion here is that Trump is simply making up another of his stories (as opposed to making a credible interpretation of information even though that information could be interpreted differently by others). I think he knows he's lying, but he just doesn't care - and I find that hard to stomach.
I like you @Grond0. You seem like a kindred spirit to me.
I tend to think that both sides lie, and it's for the same reason. Neither side truly believes that the common person knows what's good for them and thus believes that the 'other side' is trying to deceive them to their point of view. There is truth in that belief, but there is also arrogance in it as well. The ugly 'truth' is that there's some merit to both sides and neither side will ever admit to any truth to the other. Ever!!! That's why two parties can't possibly represent everybody, and why I'd ever even consider voting for a Bernie Sanders considering my personal beliefs. I tend to think that my way of thinking might explain why Trump was able to win in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2016 also (and why he might be able to do it again in 2020).
I don't know American politics well enough to assess whether both sides have traditionally lied equally while playing the game of trying to make their policies seem more acceptable. I accept though that no party is going to represent everyone over time (I've voted at one time or another for every significant party in the UK). Edit: except Brexit / UKIP.
I still think what Trump does though is different in kind as well as degree from what you describe. His lies are primarily to support his personal aggrandizement, not because he thinks they're going to help implement policies that (in his view) would be best for the nation. That's why he regularly makes false claims about things that have no relevance to policies (like the famous incident over crowd sizes right at the start of his Presidency).
Though I have a particular problem with Trump, in the last few years I do have the strong impression that there is more of that sort of bare-faced lying going on from the Republicans than the Democrats. There might be a number of reasons for that, e.g. the greater scope for corruption and abuse of power by a governing party probably provides more motivation to lie about personal actions. From this distance though I think it's more than that. To some degree Trump is shifting the goalposts - making things acceptable that were previously not so. In addition it seems to me he's also appointing some like-minded individuals who have seen him get away with the use of 'alternative facts' and think of that as just another useful tactic.
I do realize that I'm probably in the minority in advocating a more scientific approach to debate, with a high degree of respect for the truth. Most voters are probably far more comfortable than me with the idea that lying is just something politicians do and what matters is the policies they put in place. Perhaps it's my own version of a zero-tolerance approach to anti-social behavior (like the idea that if you crack down on graffiti and dropping chewing gum, you will prevent people moving onto more serious offences). I do think it's likely that if you ignore people lying about relatively unimportant things, they will naturally come to regard that as the best way to deal with concerns over much more important things in the future.
I agree that the Republicans in America are lying more now than the Democrats. However, in the past, it was Democrats that were doing the lion's share of deception. Republicans and conservatives are feeling left out due to more centrist and liberal bias in the press (yes, I do believe the mainstream press is more on the liberal side than most Americans in general). With only two points of view to choose from, is it really surprising that Trump is so popular with Republicans/conservatives? What would it take for @jjstraka34, @smeagolheart, @ThacoBell, or @semiticgod to vote Republican? Is it so hard to believe that a conservative would be reluctant to vote for a Democratic candidate?
Talking about alternative facts I see that Iran has just accepted it did shoot down the Ukrainian airliner. It's made pretty strong denials of that in the last few days, but the substantial amount of evidence already available outside their control appears to have persuaded them to come clean.
Even if that's slightly belated I'm still glad to see that happen, rather than for them to just invent a new story (for instance that it was a terrorist or CIA plot to implicate our brave soldiers). If only I could be confident the current US government would own up even that quickly in similar circumstances, I would feel a lot happier ...
/shrug - the tweets actually make sense to me. I wouldnt say they're exhaustive in explaining the topic they're on but then I dont see anywhere that they claim to be exhaustive.
The Right's anti-intellectualist crusade against higher education is probably one of the most absurd things in our society today.
Not surprising considering the scripture lauding the 'wisdom of the world being foolishness in the sight of God' from Corinthians. Talk about justification for ignorance...
/shrug - the tweets actually make sense to me. I wouldnt say they're exhaustive in explaining the topic they're on but then I dont see anywhere that they claim to be exhaustive.
The Right's anti-intellectualist crusade against higher education is probably one of the most absurd things in our society today.
Not surprising considering the scripture lauding the 'wisdom of the world being foolishness in the sight of God' from Corinthians. Talk about justification for ignorance...
I think it's alot more simple than that. Some people just resent that they aren't that bright and compensate by pretending ignorance is some kind of common-man virtue. I started questioning my own parish priest about the Bible when I was ten. I started by asking "Why are these people living to be 275 years old?? That seems a little unrealistic". Then I started wondering why no one turns into pillars of salt for disobeying divine orders anymore. Then I wanted to get into the logistics of living inside the belly of a whale for a week. Eventually, I couldn't handle the weight of the absurdity anymore. It was no different than the shit I was reading about Zeus and Athena in English class.
But that's besides the point. I don't even think religion is the core cause of the anti-intellectualism on the right. And these people sure as shit aren't visiting doctors without medical school degrees or traversing around in building built by fake architects are they?? When is the last time you ever heard someone say "god, I really hope my next dentist is someone who barely slid his way through college"?? Or "hook me up with an accountant who can't add or subtract".
As for what it would take to vote for a Republican?? At a bare minimum, whatever procedure Alex had to undergo in "A Clockwork Orange."
Bernie has taken the lead in the most recent poll in Iowa, which mercifully is only 3 weeks out so we can get rid of all this dead weight. IF Sanders is able to win Iowa, New Hampshire is right next door to his home state. If he wins both, it's hard to see how he's gonna be stopped. This is, at this point, the only way to go. Putting the left's actual ideas up against Trump's cultural aggrievement roadshow and seeing who comes out on top. The most distressing thing right now is billionaires Tom Steyer and Bloomberg have literally BOUGHT their way to 5 or 6% in the polls with massive ad blitzes. I don't watch regular TV much anymore, but when I do, Tom Steyer is usually on within 10 minutes.
@Balrog99 At a bare minimum? Stop trying to kill my family. Ever since Obama, every conservative politician proudly proclaims that they intend to abolish Obamacare, cut medicaid and welfare. Stuff that is the SOLE reason my son has even lived as long as he has. His first two months of life was almost a $20,000 medical bill. TWO MONTHS. Whether its malicious or not, these people are actively pushing agendas that WILL KILL thousands (maybe millions) of people.
I don't really care what a candidates's party is. I don't claim to be a member of any political party. All I care about is legislation and issues. It just so happens that the conservative position appears to be, "Lets kill all the poor/disabled people."
I think Bloomberg would have a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders.
Sanders ideas will be attacked and exaggerated nonstop by right leaning politicians enough for centralist to hold their nose and give Trump 4 more years. Last election should have proved that it's not how popular a person is, but how a few voters in 3 or 4 states view the candidate and policies being brought forward.
Getting a Bloomberg in there, takes way a lot of what Trump sells to centralist. He is "self-made" with National (if not International) name recognition, outside of the Washington elite who can self finance his campaign making him less likely to be bought by lobbyist. Now I am fully aware that most of what I typed Is false, but that is the perception that can be sold to those that only pay attention to 30 words or less ad campaigns. I think the Trump campaign would have a very hard time attacking Bloomberg more than any other candidate. Remove the attacks and Trump is left with his accomplishments and his failures to run on.
I think Bloomberg would have a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders.
Sanders ideas will be attacked and exaggerated nonstop by right leaning politicians enough for centralist to hold their nose and give Trump 4 more years. Last election should have proved that it's not how popular a person is, but how a few voters in 3 or 4 states view the candidate and policies being brought forward.
Getting a Bloomberg in there, takes way a lot of what Trump sells to centralist. He is "self-made" with National (if not International) name recognition, outside of the Washington elite who can self finance his campaign making him less likely to be bought by lobbyist. Now I am fully aware that most of what I typed Is false, but that is the perception that can be sold to those that only pay attention to 30 words or less ad campaigns. I think the Trump campaign would have a very hard time attacking Bloomberg more than any other candidate. Remove the attacks and Trump is left with his accomplishments and his failures to run on.
Despite how they give Trump a pass for being the EXACT same thing (a New York billionaire) that is exactly how Trump will paint him to the "folks" in the rust belt. To say nothing of the absolute revulsion about half the Democratic base has toward voting for a billionaire trying to buy the nomination.
I think Bloomberg would have a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders.
Sanders ideas will be attacked and exaggerated nonstop by right leaning politicians enough for centralist to hold their nose and give Trump 4 more years. Last election should have proved that it's not how popular a person is, but how a few voters in 3 or 4 states view the candidate and policies being brought forward.
Getting a Bloomberg in there, takes way a lot of what Trump sells to centralist. He is "self-made" with National (if not International) name recognition, outside of the Washington elite who can self finance his campaign making him less likely to be bought by lobbyist. Now I am fully aware that most of what I typed Is false, but that is the perception that can be sold to those that only pay attention to 30 words or less ad campaigns. I think the Trump campaign would have a very hard time attacking Bloomberg more than any other candidate. Remove the attacks and Trump is left with his accomplishments and his failures to run on.
Despite how they give Trump a pass for being the EXACT same thing (a New York billionaire) that is exactly how Trump will paint him to the "folks" in the rust belt. To say nothing of the absolute revulsion about half the Democratic base has toward voting for a billionaire trying to buy the nomination.
The Democrats do not have to worry about the left though. Anyone but Trump is a thing. The Democrats need to be smart about this. Their base doesn't matter at this point pretty much like Trump's base doesn't matter. It's who is going to appeal to voters in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan (USMA was a win for them), Pennsylvania and Florida.
Bloomberg can compete financially with Trump's key targeting campaigning and can pretty much use the New York billionaire paint job against Trump (Yes I am one, just like Trump. But unlike Trump, I am more successful at it. I have never bankrupted a Casino for example. Oh and btw, I am putting all my assets into a Blind Trust and not handing them over to my nepotism kids. And I'll show my full tax returns once Trump does, but this is how much tax I paid the last X amount of years).
Add the recent successes Trump has had these swing states have a very good chance of swinging Trump's way if the wrong candidate is elected.
What recent successes? He's been a failure recently for the past 3 years. Anybody would be better than Trump. My aunt Hilda would be a better President than Trump and she's got dementia.
Funny how NOW trump believes in protest and Democracy. But when it's against him he doesn't believe in protest or Democracy.
Why people take a SINGLE thing these people say at face value is absolutely mind-blowing. Here is the Secretary of Raytheon (sorry, Secretary of Defense) admitting Trump lied about the 4 embassies being targeted. This is on the heels of Trump admitting on FOX that he is in Syria strictly to secure oil fields and that he is essentially hiring out US troops as mercenaries (for cash) to Saudi Arabia:
- what seems to me a very clear overall economic benefit to [/b]the country.
- the influx of highly educated immigrants.
- the cultural richness (I know you're not impressed by things like the wider range of foods available, but others think differently).
- the greater drive for innovation (which is not limited to the more highly educated immigrants).
I don't doubt the corporate overlords get some economic benefit out of it, otherwise they wouldn't make both of their political parties fight for it. But we have established they aren't going to the bottom of society, those people are being hurt. I can only assume then when we say it is good for the economy, we mean it is good for the top of the economic ladder.
I gotta be straight with you chief, I don't care much about economic productivity if those gains are not distributed across society. I'm not gonna see any of that, so I don't see why I should care.
"Cultural richness" is entirely subjective and I reject it personally as i'm sure many do. Probably more than half of the opposition to immigration is the changing cultural landscape it will inevitably bring. Not many people like it when you change their lives around them without asking and without them wanting it. When it comes with political disenfranchisement that is very deliberate, you can see how this is more a boiling pot of resentment that will inevitably leak out across society rather than an unabashed good.
I will tell you that I prefer the homogenized small towns of America over the "culturally rich" urban centers of America any day of the week, and I resent the cosmopolitan overlords transforming places that they don't like and have never been to without the say so or any real thought to what those people want. The fact that people chose Trump during the primary over all the other republicans, and that so many states voted for him over Clinton, tells me that there are quite a few places in this country that resent this. I don't think he will necessarily win in 2020 to be honest with ya, but that is far more due to his incompetence in a wide variety of areas than his core messaging during 2016.
In all honesty the whole economic argument sounds a bunch of crap. Innovation and economic benefits for the already well-to-do while the people who actually need help get none of it. I hate to use the term class warfare because it is so laden with other meanings, but that's pretty much what it is. Upper class folks reap the benefits at the expense of the lower. Why can't we invest in them rather than leave them behind for "better" people?
Those places aren't even changing. Nearly all the immigrants and "cosmopolitan" transformation is happening in cities, where many of these people don't even VISIT, much less live. They are concerned about transformation taking shape in places that are dozens if not hundreds of miles from where they actually live. You constantly complain about urban elites transforming their way of life, yet you QUITE CLEARLY have no issue with rural voters having out-sized influence on how urban areas should live theirs. In some areas of the country, there isn't a net big enough to cast that could find an immigrant within 10 square miles, yet those areas of the country are the ones MOST concerned about them, and the people who actually live and work next to them every day have absolutely no problem with them.
And I still have yet to find a single way it changes anyone's "way of life". Have these people been forced to vacate their home for Somali immigrants?? Did their marriage dissolve because two gay people on the other side of town got married?? Are they not allowed to cook steak and potatoes 5 nights a week for dinner because an Indian restaurant opened up downtown?? Can we elaborate how other people having MORE choices in regards to how they live infringes on the ability of those who want less to continue to do so??
I don't think we're far apart on this issue (certainly not on the economic aspects of the argument). I think I've said pretty clearly that:
- immigration offers net economic benefits
- those benefits are currently not being seen by many people because of the extreme level of economic inequality in the US.
That doesn't make immigration a bad thing - it's the choices being made about the distribution of resources that results in immigration having negative economic effects on some groups. If the problem is inequality, then why not address the root causes of that, rather than blaming immigration for being associated with one of the symptoms?
This is on the heels of Trump admitting on FOX that he is in Syria strictly to secure oil fields and that he is essentially hiring out US troops as mercenaries (for cash) to Saudi Arabia:
Well Saudi Arabia does have a few floors in at least one Trump tower rented.
I don't think it's right that our military's lives on the line to line Trump's pockets with bribes from the Saudi government. Perhaps these violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution should be enforced. Republicans allowing and excusing this are disgusting and/or cowards.
@jjstraka34 " Can we elaborate how other people having MORE choices in regards to how they live infringes on the ability of those who want less to continue to do so??"
I'll hazard a guess and say "no." The right only has emotional responses to fall back on, so when specific examples are asked for, the conversation tends to just end. Like when people claimed here that the child concentration camps aren't concentration camps. I made several direct comparisons to the camp Anne Frank died in. Did I get a response? Nope, just dead silence.
Trump's claim again this morning that he is the one who got the pre-existing conditions protections into law while his Administration is literally fighting in court to destroy the law that was passed by Democrats that actually DID usher in those protections is such brazen dishonesty and cynicism that it almost defies belief. Again, the amount of contempt you have to have for the intelligence of your own supporters to believe they will swallow this pill is INFINITELY greater than even the most conservative-hating liberal could come up with. It means you are assuming they are nothing but potted plants.
Looks like Bernie might have made the case that he doesn’t believe a woman can win in 2020. Hard to say if this is true, but apparently most of the sources were “in the room”, and agreed it happened.
Sanders already had an issue with Women voters. It’s only going to get worse after something like this...
Looks like Bernie might have made the case that he doesn’t believe a woman can win in 2020. Hard to say if this is true, but apparently most of the sources were “in the room”, and agreed it happened.
Sanders already had an issue with Women voters. It’s only going to get worse after something like this...
I don't really buy this to be honest, at least not in the way it's being portrayed. This sounds like a hail mary with Iowa just a couple weeks away. He also may be correct, but that's a reflection of the country, not the person pointing it out.
Comments
I was trying to put things in a wider context. You were making the point that immigration can have a depressing effect on unskilled wage levels. I was pointing out that this is the result of only 1 aspect of immigration. In considering whether immigration is a good thing overall I think you need to consider a wider range of issues, such as:
- what seems to me a very clear overall economic benefit to the country.
- the influx of highly educated immigrants.
- the cultural richness (I know you're not impressed by things like the wider range of foods available, but others think differently).
- the greater drive for innovation (which is not limited to the more highly educated immigrants).
As I said before I also think that there is an easy solution to the problem you identify - instituting an effective minimum wage. Personally I think that would not only help with this particular problem, but have much wider beneficial effects as well (such as reigning in a bit the current tendency to extreme income inequality and the ability for more rapacious companies to exploit the less-educated pool of labor).
You said you don't see a problem with immigration by the better educated. That sounds like Trump's preferred solution - to carve off just the 'best' immigrants, i.e. the wealthy, well-educated, Westernized ones and forbid everyone else. I suspect over time that would have a detrimental effect on the US.
An example could be the potential impact on social mobility. There is already far less of that in the US than there used to be (partly as a result of the growing income inequality), so that while the 'American Dream' is still a strong part of people's identity in the US, it does not reflect present reality - shutting off immigration would help to reinforce that trend to social stratification across generations.
"So could it be true? I guess it could be. Is it likely to be true? Probably not,"
More and more 'Truth' seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The more lies and half-truths there are on both sides seems to just entrench beliefs in the 'where I'm at right now' camps. There is no 'lets see where you're coming from and meet in between' anymore. Both sides have good ideas that should be explored but with the entrenched ideology I just don't think either side will admit when they're wrong and shit-can bad ideas that don't work (liberals seem to be particularly blind to outcomes that don't adhere to their beliefs but there are plenty of conservative ideas that don't work also). This is just so wrong from my more centrist point of view. As a scientist I'm willing to try different ideas on an experimental basis, but if ideology/intentions instead of results is going to be the bar, I just don't see a good outcome happening...
Edit: Just as an aside, the experimental side of me is why I'm leaning to Bernie Sanders. A lot of his ideas haven't been tried yet and that intrigues me. The caveat is that if his ideas don't work I'm afraid that we'll be stuck with them rather than having them reworked or shit-canned. It's a real dilemma for me whether or not to risk trying them out...
There are two different things here. I can understand your desire to test out ideas in the real world when it's uncertain how they will work - two sides both say their ideas are better, so let's try them out and see ...
That though is a very different thing from whether you tell the truth from your perspective. My strong suspicion here is that Trump is simply making up another of his stories (as opposed to making a credible interpretation of information even though that information could be interpreted differently by others). I think he knows he's lying, but he just doesn't care - and I find that hard to stomach.
I like you @Grond0. You seem like a kindred spirit to me.
I tend to think that both sides lie, and it's for the same reason. Neither side truly believes that the common person knows what's good for them and thus believes that the 'other side' is trying to deceive them to their point of view. There is truth in that belief, but there is also arrogance in it as well. The ugly 'truth' is that there's some merit to both sides and neither side will ever admit to any truth to the other. Ever!!! That's why two parties can't possibly represent everybody, and why I'd ever even consider voting for a Bernie Sanders considering my personal beliefs. I tend to think that my way of thinking might explain why Trump was able to win in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2016 also (and why he might be able to do it again in 2020).
That's the problem I have with Trump. Even if he's telling the truth you can't tell. I won't shed a tear for Soleimani but was this the right time to get rid of him? Who the Hell knows? If 50 people died in some attack he planned that's still less than the lives lost in the airliner shot down over Tehran. Truth to tell, there's no way of knowing whether or not it was truly worth it. That's why some modicum of trust in our President is needed (and precisely what we don't have currently).
I don't know American politics well enough to assess whether both sides have traditionally lied equally while playing the game of trying to make their policies seem more acceptable. I accept though that no party is going to represent everyone over time (I've voted at one time or another for every significant party in the UK). Edit: except Brexit / UKIP.
I still think what Trump does though is different in kind as well as degree from what you describe. His lies are primarily to support his personal aggrandizement, not because he thinks they're going to help implement policies that (in his view) would be best for the nation. That's why he regularly makes false claims about things that have no relevance to policies (like the famous incident over crowd sizes right at the start of his Presidency).
Though I have a particular problem with Trump, in the last few years I do have the strong impression that there is more of that sort of bare-faced lying going on from the Republicans than the Democrats. There might be a number of reasons for that, e.g. the greater scope for corruption and abuse of power by a governing party probably provides more motivation to lie about personal actions. From this distance though I think it's more than that. To some degree Trump is shifting the goalposts - making things acceptable that were previously not so. In addition it seems to me he's also appointing some like-minded individuals who have seen him get away with the use of 'alternative facts' and think of that as just another useful tactic.
I do realize that I'm probably in the minority in advocating a more scientific approach to debate, with a high degree of respect for the truth. Most voters are probably far more comfortable than me with the idea that lying is just something politicians do and what matters is the policies they put in place. Perhaps it's my own version of a zero-tolerance approach to anti-social behavior (like the idea that if you crack down on graffiti and dropping chewing gum, you will prevent people moving onto more serious offences). I do think it's likely that if you ignore people lying about relatively unimportant things, they will naturally come to regard that as the best way to deal with concerns over much more important things in the future.
I agree that the Republicans in America are lying more now than the Democrats. However, in the past, it was Democrats that were doing the lion's share of deception. Republicans and conservatives are feeling left out due to more centrist and liberal bias in the press (yes, I do believe the mainstream press is more on the liberal side than most Americans in general). With only two points of view to choose from, is it really surprising that Trump is so popular with Republicans/conservatives? What would it take for @jjstraka34, @smeagolheart, @ThacoBell, or @semiticgod to vote Republican? Is it so hard to believe that a conservative would be reluctant to vote for a Democratic candidate?
Even if that's slightly belated I'm still glad to see that happen, rather than for them to just invent a new story (for instance that it was a terrorist or CIA plot to implicate our brave soldiers). If only I could be confident the current US government would own up even that quickly in similar circumstances, I would feel a lot happier ...
Not surprising considering the scripture lauding the 'wisdom of the world being foolishness in the sight of God' from Corinthians. Talk about justification for ignorance...
I think it's alot more simple than that. Some people just resent that they aren't that bright and compensate by pretending ignorance is some kind of common-man virtue. I started questioning my own parish priest about the Bible when I was ten. I started by asking "Why are these people living to be 275 years old?? That seems a little unrealistic". Then I started wondering why no one turns into pillars of salt for disobeying divine orders anymore. Then I wanted to get into the logistics of living inside the belly of a whale for a week. Eventually, I couldn't handle the weight of the absurdity anymore. It was no different than the shit I was reading about Zeus and Athena in English class.
But that's besides the point. I don't even think religion is the core cause of the anti-intellectualism on the right. And these people sure as shit aren't visiting doctors without medical school degrees or traversing around in building built by fake architects are they?? When is the last time you ever heard someone say "god, I really hope my next dentist is someone who barely slid his way through college"?? Or "hook me up with an accountant who can't add or subtract".
As for what it would take to vote for a Republican?? At a bare minimum, whatever procedure Alex had to undergo in "A Clockwork Orange."
I don't really care what a candidates's party is. I don't claim to be a member of any political party. All I care about is legislation and issues. It just so happens that the conservative position appears to be, "Lets kill all the poor/disabled people."
Sanders ideas will be attacked and exaggerated nonstop by right leaning politicians enough for centralist to hold their nose and give Trump 4 more years. Last election should have proved that it's not how popular a person is, but how a few voters in 3 or 4 states view the candidate and policies being brought forward.
Getting a Bloomberg in there, takes way a lot of what Trump sells to centralist. He is "self-made" with National (if not International) name recognition, outside of the Washington elite who can self finance his campaign making him less likely to be bought by lobbyist. Now I am fully aware that most of what I typed Is false, but that is the perception that can be sold to those that only pay attention to 30 words or less ad campaigns. I think the Trump campaign would have a very hard time attacking Bloomberg more than any other candidate. Remove the attacks and Trump is left with his accomplishments and his failures to run on.
Despite how they give Trump a pass for being the EXACT same thing (a New York billionaire) that is exactly how Trump will paint him to the "folks" in the rust belt. To say nothing of the absolute revulsion about half the Democratic base has toward voting for a billionaire trying to buy the nomination.
The Democrats do not have to worry about the left though. Anyone but Trump is a thing. The Democrats need to be smart about this. Their base doesn't matter at this point pretty much like Trump's base doesn't matter. It's who is going to appeal to voters in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan (USMA was a win for them), Pennsylvania and Florida.
Bloomberg can compete financially with Trump's key targeting campaigning and can pretty much use the New York billionaire paint job against Trump (Yes I am one, just like Trump. But unlike Trump, I am more successful at it. I have never bankrupted a Casino for example. Oh and btw, I am putting all my assets into a Blind Trust and not handing them over to my nepotism kids. And I'll show my full tax returns once Trump does, but this is how much tax I paid the last X amount of years).
This is an older article, but it still rings true today IMO. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/trump-rivals-biden-warren-and-sanders-in-2020-election-swing-states.html Add the recent successes Trump has had these swing states have a very good chance of swinging Trump's way if the wrong candidate is elected.
What recent successes? He's been a failure recently for the past 3 years. Anybody would be better than Trump. My aunt Hilda would be a better President than Trump and she's got dementia.
Funny how NOW trump believes in protest and Democracy. But when it's against him he doesn't believe in protest or Democracy.
I don't doubt the corporate overlords get some economic benefit out of it, otherwise they wouldn't make both of their political parties fight for it. But we have established they aren't going to the bottom of society, those people are being hurt. I can only assume then when we say it is good for the economy, we mean it is good for the top of the economic ladder.
I gotta be straight with you chief, I don't care much about economic productivity if those gains are not distributed across society. I'm not gonna see any of that, so I don't see why I should care.
"Cultural richness" is entirely subjective and I reject it personally as i'm sure many do. Probably more than half of the opposition to immigration is the changing cultural landscape it will inevitably bring. Not many people like it when you change their lives around them without asking and without them wanting it. When it comes with political disenfranchisement that is very deliberate, you can see how this is more a boiling pot of resentment that will inevitably leak out across society rather than an unabashed good.
I will tell you that I prefer the homogenized small towns of America over the "culturally rich" urban centers of America any day of the week, and I resent the cosmopolitan overlords transforming places that they don't like and have never been to without the say so or any real thought to what those people want. The fact that people chose Trump during the primary over all the other republicans, and that so many states voted for him over Clinton, tells me that there are quite a few places in this country that resent this. I don't think he will necessarily win in 2020 to be honest with ya, but that is far more due to his incompetence in a wide variety of areas than his core messaging during 2016.
In all honesty the whole economic argument sounds a bunch of crap. Innovation and economic benefits for the already well-to-do while the people who actually need help get none of it. I hate to use the term class warfare because it is so laden with other meanings, but that's pretty much what it is. Upper class folks reap the benefits at the expense of the lower. Why can't we invest in them rather than leave them behind for "better" people?
And I still have yet to find a single way it changes anyone's "way of life". Have these people been forced to vacate their home for Somali immigrants?? Did their marriage dissolve because two gay people on the other side of town got married?? Are they not allowed to cook steak and potatoes 5 nights a week for dinner because an Indian restaurant opened up downtown?? Can we elaborate how other people having MORE choices in regards to how they live infringes on the ability of those who want less to continue to do so??
- immigration offers net economic benefits
- those benefits are currently not being seen by many people because of the extreme level of economic inequality in the US.
That doesn't make immigration a bad thing - it's the choices being made about the distribution of resources that results in immigration having negative economic effects on some groups. If the problem is inequality, then why not address the root causes of that, rather than blaming immigration for being associated with one of the symptoms?
Well Saudi Arabia does have a few floors in at least one Trump tower rented.
I don't think it's right that our military's lives on the line to line Trump's pockets with bribes from the Saudi government. Perhaps these violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution should be enforced. Republicans allowing and excusing this are disgusting and/or cowards.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/business/boeing-ceo-muilenburg-severance/index.html
Edit: Real shame he didn't get his severance.
It’s allegedly going to be a three or four part series looking at different ridings that swung to Trump after voting for Obama.
It was an informative read. The state of the economy seems to be a driving force.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/13/swing-voters-donald-trump-crazy-but-will-get-my-vote-us-election-2020-iowa
I'll hazard a guess and say "no." The right only has emotional responses to fall back on, so when specific examples are asked for, the conversation tends to just end. Like when people claimed here that the child concentration camps aren't concentration camps. I made several direct comparisons to the camp Anne Frank died in. Did I get a response? Nope, just dead silence.
Sanders already had an issue with Women voters. It’s only going to get worse after something like this...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-meeting/index.html
I don't really buy this to be honest, at least not in the way it's being portrayed. This sounds like a hail mary with Iowa just a couple weeks away. He also may be correct, but that's a reflection of the country, not the person pointing it out.